[lkml]   [2017]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Revert "timers: Don't wake ktimersoftd on every tick"
On 05/26/2017 03:50 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2017, Haris Okanovic wrote:
>> Oh crap. I think I see the problem. I decrement expired_count before
>> processing the list. Dropping the lock permits another run of
>> tick_find_expired()->find_expired_timers() in the middle of __expire_timers()
>> since it uses expired_count==0 as a condition.
>> This should fix it, but I'll wait for Anna-Maria's test next week before
>> submitting a patch.
>>> static void expire_timers(struct timer_base *base)
>>> {
>>> struct hlist_head *head;
>>> + int expCount = base->expired_count;
> No camel case for heavens sake!
> And this requires:
> cnt = READ_ONCE(base->expired_count);
>>> - while (base->expired_count--) {
>>> - head = base->expired_lists + base->expired_count;
>>> + while (expCount--) {
>>> + head = base->expired_lists + expCount;
>>> __expire_timers(base, head);
>>> }
> Plus a comment.

Fixed, thanks.

Are your recommending READ_ONCE() purely for documentation purposes?
All reads and writes to base->expired_count happen while base->lock is
held. It just can't reach zero until expired_lists is ready to be rewritten.

>>> base->expired_count = 0;
> Anna-Maria spotted the same issue, but I voted for the revert right now
> because I was worried about the consistency of base->clk under all
> circumstances.
> The other thing I noticed was this weird condition which does not do the
> look ahead when base->clk is back for some time.

The soft interrupt fires unconditionally if base->clk hasn't advanced in
some time to limit how long cpu spends in hard interrupt context.

> Why don't you use the
> existing optimization which uses the bitmap for fast forward?

Are you referring to forward_timer_base()/base->next_expiry? I think
it's only updated in the nohz case. Can you share function name/line
number(s) if you're thinking of something else.

> The other issue I have is that this can race at all. If you raised the
> softirq in the look ahead then you should not go into that function until
> the softirq has actually completed. There is no point in wasting time in
> the hrtimer interrupt if the softirq is running anyway.

Makes sense. Skipping the large `if` block in run_local_timers() when
`local_softirq_pending() & TIMER_SOFTIRQ`.

> Thanks,
> tglx

I also ran Anna-Maria's test for 12h without failure; I.e. no "Stalled"
messages. It fails withing 10-15m on my qemu VM without the fix (4-core
Nehalem, 1GB RAM).

You can view a diff at

-- Haris

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-06-05 00:14    [W:0.128 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site