[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <711dc967-b4cf-807b-6c74-5c9d914ab619@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 17:39:11 +0530
From: shrikanth hegde <sshegde@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
svaidy@...ux.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
bigeasy@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] hrtimer: interleave timers for improved single thread
performance at low utilization
On 1/31/23 4:07 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * shrikanth hegde <sshegde@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> ---
>> kernel/time/hrtimer.c | 11 +++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/time/hrtimer.c b/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
>> index 3ae661ab6260..d160f49f0cce 100644
>> --- a/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
>> +++ b/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
>> @@ -1055,6 +1055,17 @@ u64 hrtimer_forward(struct hrtimer *timer, ktime_t now, ktime_t interval)
>>
>> orun = ktime_divns(delta, incr);
>> hrtimer_add_expires_ns(timer, incr * orun);
>> + /*
>> + * Avoid timer round-off, so that all cfs bandwidth timers
>> + * don't start at the same time
>> + */
>> + if (incr >= 100000000ULL) {
>> + s64 interleave = 0;
>> + interleave = ktime_sub_ns(delta, incr * orun);
>> + interleave = interleave - (ktime_to_ns(delta) % (incr/10));
>> + if (interleave > 0)
>> + hrtimer_add_expires_ns(timer, interleave);
>> + }
>
> Any reason why you did this in the hrtimer code, instead of the
> (sched_cfs_period_timer?) hrtimer handler itself?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
Yes. Thanks for making me think in that way.
This can be done in start_cfs_bandwidth by setting an initial expiry value.
Tried that change. it works in interleaving the timers.
Will do bit more testing and send out the patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists