[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20231004123454.15691-4-anna-maria@linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2023 14:34:32 +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 <frederic@...nel.org>,
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>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...el.com>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
Subject: [PATCH v8 03/25] timer: Do not IPI for deferrable timers
Deferrable timers do not prevent CPU from going idle and are not taken into
account on idle path. Sending an IPI to a remote CPU when a new first
deferrable timer was enqueued will wake up the remote CPU and but nothing
will be done regarding the deferrable timers.
Drop IPI completely when a new first deferrable timer was enqueued.
Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
---
v8: Update comment
v6: new patch
---
kernel/time/timer.c | 15 ++++++---------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/time/timer.c b/kernel/time/timer.c
index 63a8ce7177dd..7d06351aff54 100644
--- a/kernel/time/timer.c
+++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
@@ -571,18 +571,15 @@ static int calc_wheel_index(unsigned long expires, unsigned long clk,
static void
trigger_dyntick_cpu(struct timer_base *base, struct timer_list *timer)
{
- if (!is_timers_nohz_active())
- return;
-
/*
- * TODO: This wants some optimizing similar to the code below, but we
- * will do that when we switch from push to pull for deferrable timers.
+ * Deferrable timers do not prevent CPU from entering dynticks and are
+ * not taken into account on idle/nohz_full path. An IPI when a new
+ * deferrable timer is enqueued will wake up the remote CPU but nothing
+ * will be done with the deferrable timer base. Therefore skip remote
+ * IPI for deferrable timers completely.
*/
- if (timer->flags & TIMER_DEFERRABLE) {
- if (tick_nohz_full_cpu(base->cpu))
- wake_up_nohz_cpu(base->cpu);
+ if (!is_timers_nohz_active() || timer->flags & TIMER_DEFERRABLE)
return;
- }
/*
* We might have to IPI the remote CPU if the base is idle and the
--
2.39.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists