linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 09/16] timer: Split out "get next timer interrupt" functionality

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]

Date:   Mon, 7 Nov 2022 13:42:05 +0100
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To:     Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 09/16] timer: Split out "get next timer interrupt"
 functionality

On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 03:57:30PM +0100, Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote:
> forward_and_idle_timer_bases() includes the functionality for getting the
> next timer interrupt. To reuse it, it is splitted into an separate function
> "get_next_timer_interrupt()".
> 
> This is preparatory work for the conversion of the NOHZ timer
> placement to a pull at expiry time model. No functional change.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
> ---
> v4: Fix typo in comment
> ---
>  kernel/time/timer.c | 93 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>  1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/time/timer.c b/kernel/time/timer.c
> index 680a0760e30d..853089febf83 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/timer.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
> @@ -1704,6 +1704,46 @@ static unsigned long next_timer_interrupt(struct timer_base *base)
>  	return base->next_expiry;
>  }
>  
> +static unsigned long get_next_timer_interrupt(struct timer_base *base_local,

So perhaps forward_and_idle_timer_interrupt() could stay as
"get_next_timer_interrupt()" and the new get_next_timer_interrupt() above could
become fetch_next_timer_interrupt().

Just an idea.

>From a functional POV:

     Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>

Thanks.