lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH tip/core/timers 1/3] timers: Reduce __run_timers() latency for empty list
On 01/13, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> The __run_timers() function currently steps through the list one jiffy at
> a time in order to update the timer wheel. However, if the timer wheel
> is empty, no adjustment is needed other than updating ->timer_jiffies.

Yes, but ->active_timers == 0 doesn't necessarily mean "empty", it only
counts the non-deferrable timers?

> In this case, which is likely to be common for NO_HZ_FULL kernels, the
> kernel currently incurs a large latency for no good reason. This commit
> therefore short-circuits this case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> kernel/timer.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/timer.c b/kernel/timer.c
> index 6582b82fa966..21849275828f 100644
> --- a/kernel/timer.c
> +++ b/kernel/timer.c
> @@ -337,6 +337,17 @@ void set_timer_slack(struct timer_list *timer, int slack_hz)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(set_timer_slack);
>
> +static bool catchup_timer_jiffies(struct tvec_base *base)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL
> + if (!base->active_timers) {
> + base->timer_jiffies = jiffies;
> + return 1;
> + }
> +#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL */
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static void
> __internal_add_timer(struct tvec_base *base, struct timer_list *timer)
> {
> @@ -1146,6 +1157,10 @@ static inline void __run_timers(struct tvec_base *base)
> struct timer_list *timer;
>
> spin_lock_irq(&base->lock);

Do we really need to take base->lock before catchup_timer_jiffies() ?
->timer_jiffies can only be changed by us, and it seems that we do
not care if we race with base->active_timers++.

> + if (catchup_timer_jiffies(base)) {
> + spin_unlock_irq(&base->lock);
> + return;

This is what I can't understand... Doesn't this mean that, unless this
base have a non-deferrable timer, we can never run the pending deferrable
timers even if the system/cpu is "busy" ?

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-01-14 20:21    [W:0.259 / U:0.540 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site