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: <20140116021453.GO10038@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:14:53 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.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 Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 06:03:10PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 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.

Given that this is at best a temporary solution, I would like to avoid
the complexity of this sort of optimization unless it turns out to be
a major performance issue.

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

And I do want to keep this pretty simple!

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/