linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 16/32] timers: Optimization for timer_base_try_to_set

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 4 Dec 2023 18:52:46 +0100
From:   Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
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 <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 16/32] timers: Optimization for
 timer_base_try_to_set_idle()

On 2023-12-01 10:26:38 [+0100], Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote:
> When tick is stopped also the timer base is_idle flag is set. When
> reentering the timer_base_try_to_set_idle() with the tick stopped, there is
> no need to check whether the timer base needs to be set idle again. When a
> timer was enqueued in the meantime, this is already handled by the
> nohz_get_next_event() call which was executed before tick_nohz_stop_tick().

as of #15 tick_stopped is set later in tick_nohz_stop_tick() and both
(tick_sched::tick_stopped and timer_base::is_idle) are cleared in
tick_nohz_restart_sched_tick().

Then we have tick_nohz_idle_retain_tick() with only one caller and is
only clearing timer_base::is_idle. Now, wouldn't it make sense to
preload timer_idle based on timer_base::is_idle?

I don't know if it there is a different outcome if timer_base::is_idle
gets cleared in the idle path vs tick_sched::tick_stopped.
I can't find nohz_get_next_event().

> Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>

Sebastian