[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] hrtimer: Replace cpu_base->active_bases with a direct check of the active list
On 04/09/2015 02:48 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Apr 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 09:20:39AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> if at least one base is active (on my fairly standard system all cpus
>>> have at least one active hrtimer base all the time - and many cpus
>>> have two bases active), then we run hrtimer_get_softirq_time(), which
>>> dirties the cachelines of all 4 clock bases:
>>> base->clock_base[HRTIMER_BASE_REALTIME].softirq_time = xtim;
>>> base->clock_base[HRTIMER_BASE_MONOTONIC].softirq_time = mono;
>>> base->clock_base[HRTIMER_BASE_BOOTTIME].softirq_time = boot;
>>> base->clock_base[HRTIMER_BASE_TAI].softirq_time = tai;
>>> so in practice we not only touch every cacheline in every timer
>>> interrupt, but we _dirty_ them, even the inactive ones.
>> Urgh we should really _really_ kill that entire softirq mess.
> That's the !highres part. We cannot kill that one unless we remove all
> support for machines which do not provide hardware for highres
> support.
> Now the softirq_time thing is an optimization which we added back in
> the days when hrtimer went into the tree and Roman complained about
> the base->get_time() invocation being overkill.
> The reasoning behing this was that low resolution systems do not need
> accurate time for the expiry and the forwarding because everything
> happens tick aligned.
> So for !HIGHRES we have:
> static inline ktime_t hrtimer_cb_get_time(struct hrtimer *timer)
> {
> return timer->base->softirq_time;
> }

Why is this called softirq_time when the hrtimer is being serviced in
the hard irq context ?

Preeti U Murthy

 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-13 08:21    [W:0.087 / U:12.440 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site