From: imran.f.khan@oracle.com
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: john.stultz@linaro.org, sboyd@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Query about timer wheel API
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 00:48:56 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <266befac-b781-4a37-9261-6d956cceb36f@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <874j20cqp0.ffs@tglx>
Hello Thomas,
Thank you so much for your feedback.
On 15/1/2025 9:32 pm, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 23 2024 at 11:14, imran f. khan wrote:
>> Could you kindly help me, regarding a query about timer wheel APIs.
>> Right now we use add_timer or add_timer_on, to add a timer to any
>> or to a specific CPU respectively.
>> Would it be useful to have an interface like try_add_timer_on, that
>> would return an error or would use add_timer, if the specified CPU is
>> offline.
>>
>> Recently we have come across some bugs in the RDS code, where a delayed
>> work was being queued on an offlined CPU and as a result of that the
>> underlying timer was not firing, which in turn meant that the work was
>> never able to make it to the intended worker_pool.
>
> Urgh. Clearly add_timer_on() lacks a check and a warning for that.
>
>> I understand that this is something that needs fixing at caller side and
>> we are taking that approach.
>>
>> But I also wanted to understand if there is some scope of change on timer
>> side, for such situations. I saw your reply in [1] and agree with your point.
>> But that conversation is more than a decade old, so I thought of asking this
>> question, assuming that there may be some other use cases that can utilize
>> this new interface.
>>
>> One can also ask to change queue_delayed_work_on or have an equivalent,
>> that would check if CPU is online before doing add_timer_on but I am not sure
>> if workqueue is the only subsystem that can run into this situation.
>
> I have no idea.
>
> That said, I'm not opposed to have a function like
> timer_try_add_on_cpu(), which validates that the CPU is online and
> returns true if the timer is queued or false if the target CPU is
> offline. Then the call site can decided what to do with that
> situation. That's way better than queueing it on some randomly picked
> online CPU silently.
>
I have sent a couple of patches at [1] in this regard. Could you kindly
have a look and let me know your feedback.
Thanks,
Imran
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250115134111.2703089-1-imran.f.khan@oracle.com/
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-15 13:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-12-23 0:14 imran.f.khan
2024-12-23 12:51 ` Hillf Danton
2024-12-23 14:20 ` imran.f.khan
2024-12-24 10:41 ` Hillf Danton
2024-12-24 12:41 ` imran.f.khan
2024-12-25 11:01 ` Hillf Danton
2024-12-26 13:07 ` imran.f.khan
2024-12-27 10:30 ` Hillf Danton
2025-01-15 10:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2025-01-15 13:48 ` imran.f.khan [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=266befac-b781-4a37-9261-6d956cceb36f@oracle.com \
--to=imran.f.khan@oracle.com \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sboyd@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®