[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1409231808110.4604@nanos>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 20:33:34 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Joonwoo Park <joonwoop@...eaurora.org>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 RESEND/RFC] timer: make deferrable cpu unbound timers
really not bound to a cpu
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014, Joonwoo Park wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +static struct tvec_base *tvec_base_deferral = &boot_tvec_bases;
> +#endif
In principle I like the idea of a deferrable wheel, but this
implementation is going to go nowhere.
First of all making it SMP only is silly. The deferrable stuff is a
pain in other places as well.
But whats way worse is:
> +static inline void __run_timers(struct tvec_base *base, bool try)
> {
> struct timer_list *timer;
>
> - spin_lock_irq(&base->lock);
> + if (!try)
> + spin_lock_irq(&base->lock);
> + else if (!spin_trylock_irq(&base->lock))
> + return;
Yuck. All cpus fighting about a single spinlock roughly at the same
time? You just created a proper thundering herd cacheline bouncing
issue.
No way. We have already mechanisms in place to deal with such
problems, you just have to use them.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists