[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dbc01cd27346bb465744b93ece2b6362@codeaurora.org>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 12:53:48 -0700
From: psodagud@...eaurora.org
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: john.stultz@...aro.org, sboyd@...nel.org, tj@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, saravanak@...gle.com,
pkondeti@...eaurora.org, Joonwoo Park <joonwoop@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] timer: make deferrable cpu unbound timers really
not bound to a cpu
Hi Tglx,
On 2020-05-06 06:28, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Prasad Sodagudi <psodagud@...eaurora.org> writes:
>> To make all cpu unbound deferrable timers are scalable, introduce a
>> common
>> timer base which is only for cpu unbound deferrable timers to make
>> those
>> are indeed cpu unbound so that can be scheduled by any of non idle
>> cpus.
>> This common timer fixes scalability issue of delayed work and all
>> other cpu
>> unbound deferrable timer using implementations.
>
> Scalability? That's really the wrong term here. A global timer base is
> the opposite and you really want to explain why this is not creating a
> scalability problem on large systems.
>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>> +struct timer_base timer_base_deferrable;
>> unsigned int sysctl_timer_migration = 1;
>>
>> DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(timers_migration_enabled);
>> @@ -841,8 +842,14 @@ static inline struct timer_base
>> *get_timer_cpu_base(u32 tflags, u32 cpu)
>> * If the timer is deferrable and NO_HZ_COMMON is set then we need
>> * to use the deferrable base.
>> */
>> - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON) && (tflags & TIMER_DEFERRABLE))
>> - base = per_cpu_ptr(&timer_bases[BASE_DEF], cpu);
>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON) && (tflags & TIMER_DEFERRABLE))
>> {
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>> + base = &timer_base_deferrable;
>> +#endif
>
> There are definitely smarter ways of solving this than sprinkling
> #ifdef's around the code.
I am able to understand all other comments and I will address all those
comments in the next patch set.
It is not clear to me how to avoid #ifdef's in this case. Could you
please share an example here?
>
>> + if (tflags & TIMER_PINNED)
>> + base = per_cpu_ptr(&timer_bases[BASE_DEF], cpu);
>> + }
>> +
>> return base;
>> }
>> @@ -1785,8 +1798,14 @@ static __latent_entropy void
>> run_timer_softirq(struct softirq_action *h)
>> struct timer_base *base = this_cpu_ptr(&timer_bases[BASE_STD]);
>>
>> __run_timers(base);
>> - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON))
>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON)) {
>> __run_timers(this_cpu_ptr(&timer_bases[BASE_DEF]));
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>> + if (tick_do_timer_cpu == TICK_DO_TIMER_NONE ||
>> + tick_do_timer_cpu == smp_processor_id())
>> + __run_timers(&timer_base_deferrable);
>> +#endif
>
> Again, this can be solved in readable ways. Just slapping #ifdefs all
> over the place is sloppy and lazy.
Sorry. I will try to address this. It is not clear to me how to avoid
#ifdefs in this case too.
Please provide me more information.
>
> Aside of that accessing the tick internals here open coded is just a
> layering violation.
I will fix this and avoid using referring to tick internals here.
>
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> @@ -2025,6 +2044,16 @@ static void __init init_timer_cpu(int cpu)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON) && defined(CONFIG_SMP)
>> +static void __init init_timer_deferrable_global(void)
>> +{
>> + timer_base_deferrable.cpu = nr_cpu_ids;
>
> This was obviously never tested with CONFIG_DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS=y as
> this
> will simply result in out of bounds accesses.
Sure. I will test this CONFIG_DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS=y enabled before
pushing the next patch set.
>
>> static void __init init_timer_cpus(void)
>> {
>> int cpu;
>> @@ -2036,6 +2065,9 @@ static void __init init_timer_cpus(void)
>> void __init init_timers(void)
>> {
>> init_timer_cpus();
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON) && defined(CONFIG_SMP)
>> + init_timer_deferrable_global();
>> +#endif
>
> Stub functions exist to avoid this unreadable #ifdef garbage.
Got it. I will fix this in the next patch set.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists