[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YFCiycIaViYCy3GH@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 13:21:29 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Zhou Ti (x2019cwm)" <x2019cwm@...x.ca>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@...wei.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] tick/nohz: Prevent tick_nohz_get_sleep_length()
from returning negative value
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 01:36:59PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> From: "Zhou Ti (x2019cwm)" <x2019cwm@...x.ca>
>
> If the hardware clock happens to fire its interrupts late, two possible
> issues can happen while calling tick_nohz_get_sleep_length(). Either:
>
> 1) The next clockevent device event is due past the last idle entry time.
>
> or:
>
> 2) The last timekeeping update happened before the last idle entry time
> and the next timer callback expires before the last idle entry time.
>
> Make sure that both cases are handled to avoid returning a negative
> duration to the cpuidle governors.
Why? ... and wouldn't it be cheaper the fix the caller to
check negative once, instead of adding two branches here?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists