Message-ID: <CAD=FV=Ua8c18SGr54ThmVe1oR3bqfCyHxfhL=6z8vJXkMiUedA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Oct 2016 13:02:10 -0700
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
        Tao Huang <huangtao@...k-chips.com>,
        Tony Xie <tony.xie@...k-chips.com>,
        "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] timers: Fix usleep_range() in the context of wake_up_process()

Andreas,

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> decided to write a review now, slightly delayed, sorry.
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 02:04:02PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/time/timer.c b/kernel/time/timer.c
>> index 32bf6f75a8fe..219439efd56a 100644
>> --- a/kernel/time/timer.c
>> +++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
>> @@ -1898,12 +1898,28 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(msleep_interruptible);
>>
>>  static void __sched do_usleep_range(unsigned long min, unsigned long max)
>>  {
>> +     ktime_t now, end;
>>       ktime_t kmin;
>>       u64 delta;
>> +     int ret;
>>
>> -     kmin = ktime_set(0, min * NSEC_PER_USEC);
>> +     now = ktime_get();
>> +     end = ktime_add_us(now, min);
>>       delta = (u64)(max - min) * NSEC_PER_USEC;
>> -     schedule_hrtimeout_range(&kmin, delta, HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
>> +     do {
>> +             kmin = ktime_sub(end, now);
>> +             ret = schedule_hrtimeout_range(&kmin, delta, HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
>> +
>> +             /*
>> +              * If schedule_hrtimeout_range() returns 0 then we actually
>> +              * hit the timeout. If not then we need to re-calculate the
>> +              * new timeout ourselves.
>> +              */
>> +             if (ret == 0)
>> +                     break;
>> +
>> +             now = ktime_get();
>> +     } while (ktime_before(now, end));
>
> This loop implementation relies on negative kmin (result of ktime_sub())
> getting internally handled by schedule_hrtimeout_range() as a 0 result.
> If that ain't the case, then the loop itself will need to handle
> negative values.
> OK, scratch that, due to guaranteed-unchanged values of now and end,
> result of directly subsequent ktime_sub() is guaranteed to
> not deviate from what ktime_before() figured.
> However, this is somewhat differing handling of these two APIs.

I read this as: no bug, feel free to ignore.


> Which brings me to my second point:
> somehow doing both ktime_before() and ktime_sub() feels redundant,
> since they are both about arguments now and end,
> i.e. they are *both* evaluating a "distance".
> (this could simply calculate the distance, and then
> 1. use that calculated distance value, and
> 2. check that calculated distance value against being negative).
> So, most likely it ought to be achievable to have just *one* of these
> two active (which would likely be ktime_sub(),
> simply since we need its result as schedule_hrtimeout_range() input...).
> And that way we would save big (hohumm) on instruction cache footprint :)
>
> Hmm, but ktime API does not have sufficiently open-coded handling of the
> ktime_sub()-based distance value - the possibly only way to do an
> "is it negative?" check would be by doing
> ktime_compare(dist, ktime_null_value),
> which might be pointless
> since it's a comparably large effort
> vs. the current ktime_before(), ktime_sub() case.

I agree that we could try to save some math by making the loop more
complicated.  On the other hand, one could argue that a sufficiently
good compiler might actually be able to figure some of this stuff out,
since much of this stuff is just inlined 64-bit math comparisons.

That being said, if you want to propose some concrete changes that
save an instruction or two on most architectures and don't make the
code too complicated, I'm happy to spin my patch.


> BTW, another argument for loop rework might be that
> the result of ktime_sub() might already be improper
> (due to being negative!) for
> subsequent invocation of schedule_hrtimeout_range(),
> i.e. there's an argument to be made that
> the loop tail check instead ought to be done as a negative-value check
> directly prior to schedule_hrtimeout_range() invocation.
>
> Hmm, if schedule_hrtimeout_range() can be relied on to
> internally properly be doing the negative check,
> then one could simply say that
> the annoyingly extra calculation via ktime_before() call
> should simply be removed completely.
> Which would be a good step since it would centralize protocol behaviour
> within the inner handling of the helper
> rather than bloating user-side instruction cache footprint.

Ah, so you're saying just do a "while (true)" after changing the
behavior of schedule_hrtimeout_range_clock().  If everyone agrees that
they'd like to see this, I can do it.  I'd have to change
schedule_hrtimeout_range_clock() to check for <= 0 instead of just
comparing against 0.  ...and that would be an API change for
schedule_hrtimeout_range_clock(), and it seems like that would be yet
another source of bugs.  ...and this is to save an instruction?  It
doesn't seem worth it.


-Doug

Powered by blists - more mailing lists