[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221109163941.GC298683@lothringen>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2022 17:39:41 +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 14/16] timer: Implement the hierarchical pull model
On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 03:57:35PM +0100, Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/time/timer.c b/kernel/time/timer.c
> index f8b2065df79b..214397d84747 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/timer.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
> @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@
> #include <asm/io.h>
>
> #include "tick-internal.h"
> +#include "timer_migration.h"
>
> #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
> #include <trace/events/timer.h>
> @@ -592,10 +593,13 @@ trigger_dyntick_cpu(struct timer_base *base, struct timer_list *timer)
>
> /*
> * We might have to IPI the remote CPU if the base is idle and the
> - * timer is not deferrable. If the other CPU is on the way to idle
> - * then it can't set base->is_idle as we hold the base lock:
> + * timer is pinned. If it is a non pinned timer, it is only queued
> + * on the remote CPU, when timer was running during queueing. Then
> + * everything is handled by remote CPU anyway.
> + * on the way to idle then it can't set base->is_idle as we hold
> + * the base lock:
> */
> - if (base->is_idle)
> + if (base->is_idle && timer->flags & TIMER_PINNED)
> wake_up_nohz_cpu(base->cpu);
I'm probably missing something but, shouldn't there be a call to
tmigr_new_timer() on the target to handle the new non-pinned timer?
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists