linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/timers 2/4] timers: Reduce __run

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140115170310.GB11499@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:03:10 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
	laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
	josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
	edumazet@...gle.com, darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
	sbw@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/timers 2/4] timers: Reduce __run_timers()
	latency for empty list

On 01/14, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> The __run_timers() function currently steps through the list one jiffy at
> a time

And this is very suboptimal if jiffies - timer_jiffies is huge. Looks
like, we should rework base->tv* structures, or (perhaps) optimize
the "cascade" logic so that __run_timers() can increment timer_jiffies
and move all the expired timers into work_list at one step. And the
->next_timer logic is obviously very suboptimal.

But this is almost off-topic, I agree that in the short term these
changes make sense.

> +static bool catchup_timer_jiffies(struct tvec_base *base)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL
> +	if (!base->all_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)
>  {
> @@ -1150,6 +1161,10 @@ static inline void __run_timers(struct tvec_base *base)
>  	struct timer_list *timer;
>  
>  	spin_lock_irq(&base->lock);
> +	if (catchup_timer_jiffies(base)) {
> +		spin_unlock_irq(&base->lock);
> +		return;
> +	}


This is really minor, but perhaps it would be better to modify
run_timer_softirq() to call catchup_timer_jiffies() lockless along
with another fast-path time_after_eq() check.

Better yet, it would be nice to avoid raise_softirq(TIMER_SOFTIRQ),
but this is not simple due to hrtimer_run_pending().

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/