Re: [PATCH v6 19/21] timer: Implement the hierarchical pull model

[Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1115 bytes --]

On Mon, 15 May 2023, Sebastian Siewior wrote:

> On 2023-05-15 12:50:25 [+0200], Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote:
> > The part will be replaced by:
> > 
> > ---8<----
> > 
> > 	local_irq_disable();
> > 	timer_lock_remote_bases(cpu);
> 
> Do you s/raw_spin_lock_irq/raw_spin_lock/ in timer_lock_remote_bases()?
> Otherwise you disable interrupts twice. Not wrong but not needed.

Yes, I do so. And I also drop the return value and take the locks
unconditianlly.

> > 	raw_spin_lock(&tmc->lock);
> > 
> > 	if (!tmc->online || !tmc->idle) {
> > 		timer_unlock_remote_bases(cpu);
> > 		goto unlock;
> > 	} else {
> > 	        fetch_next_timer_interrupt_remote(jif, now, &tevt, cpu);
> > 	}
> > 
> > 	timer_unlock_remote_bases(cpu);
> 
> The locking, unlocking and fetch_next_timer_interrupt_remote() is only
> used here. So it if it wouldn't be for tmc-> then you could do
> everything timer.c in once place…

I thought about it, but then the logic has to be moved to timer.c but it is
timer_migration related code... I would like to keep the logic here in
timer_migration code... will send a v7 soon.

Thanks,

	Anna-Maria