[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230524070629.6377-7-anna-maria@linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 09:06:14 +0200
From: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: 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>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@...e.cz>,
Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>,
"Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH v7 06/21] timer: Rework idle logic
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To improve readability of the code, split base->idle calculation and
expires calculation into separate parts.
Thereby the following subtle change happens if the next event is just one
jiffy ahead and the tick was already stopped: Originally base->is_idle
remains true in this situation. Now base->is_idle turns to false. This may
spare an IPI if a timer is enqueued remotely to an idle CPU that is going
to tick on the next jiffy.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
---
v4: Change condition to force 0 delta and update commit message (Frederic)
---
kernel/time/timer.c | 29 ++++++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/time/timer.c b/kernel/time/timer.c
index 1a61977f9efa..1522fb81887e 100644
--- a/kernel/time/timer.c
+++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
@@ -1957,21 +1957,20 @@ u64 get_next_timer_interrupt(unsigned long basej, u64 basem)
base->clk = nextevt;
}
- if (time_before_eq(nextevt, basej)) {
- expires = basem;
- base->is_idle = false;
- } else {
- if (base->timers_pending)
- expires = basem + (u64)(nextevt - basej) * TICK_NSEC;
- /*
- * If we expect to sleep more than a tick, mark the base idle.
- * Also the tick is stopped so any added timer must forward
- * the base clk itself to keep granularity small. This idle
- * logic is only maintained for the BASE_STD base, deferrable
- * timers may still see large granularity skew (by design).
- */
- if ((expires - basem) > TICK_NSEC)
- base->is_idle = true;
+ /*
+ * Base is idle if the next event is more than a tick away. Also
+ * the tick is stopped so any added timer must forward the base clk
+ * itself to keep granularity small. This idle logic is only
+ * maintained for the BASE_STD base, deferrable timers may still
+ * see large granularity skew (by design).
+ */
+ base->is_idle = time_after(nextevt, basej + 1);
+
+ if (base->timers_pending) {
+ /* If we missed a tick already, force 0 delta */
+ if (time_before(nextevt, basej))
+ nextevt = basej;
+ expires = basem + (u64)(nextevt - basej) * TICK_NSEC;
}
raw_spin_unlock(&base->lock);
--
2.30.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists