From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: "Lorenzo Colitti" <lorenzo@google.com>,
"Greg KH" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Maciej Żenczykowski" <zenczykowski@gmail.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Anna-Maria Behnsen" <anna-maria@linutronix.de>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
mikael.beckius@windriver.com,
"Maciej Żenczykowski" <maze@google.com>,
"Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hrtimer: Avoid double reprogramming in __hrtimer_start_range_ns()
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 14:25:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YIaxL5zcpjbfR1gp@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YIaKnuZDfffmmAdM@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:40:46AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> There is an unfortunate amount of duplication between
> hrtimer_force_reprogram() and hrtimer_reprogram(). The obvious cleanups
> don't work however :/ Still, does that in_hrtirq optimization make sense
> to have in force_reprogram ?
Something like so perhaps?
---
kernel/time/hrtimer.c | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------------
1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/time/hrtimer.c b/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
index 5c9d968187ae..fb8d2c58443a 100644
--- a/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
+++ b/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
@@ -652,21 +652,27 @@ static inline int hrtimer_hres_active(void)
return __hrtimer_hres_active(this_cpu_ptr(&hrtimer_bases));
}
-/*
- * Reprogram the event source with checking both queues for the
- * next event
- * Called with interrupts disabled and base->lock held
- */
static void
-hrtimer_force_reprogram(struct hrtimer_cpu_base *cpu_base, int skip_equal)
+__hrtimer_force_reprogram(struct hrtimer_cpu_base *cpu_base, int skip_equal,
+ struct hrtimer *next_timer, ktime_t expires_next)
{
- ktime_t expires_next;
+ /*
+ * If the hrtimer interrupt is running, then it will
+ * reevaluate the clock bases and reprogram the clock event
+ * device. The callbacks are always executed in hard interrupt
+ * context so we don't need an extra check for a running
+ * callback.
+ */
+ if (cpu_base->in_hrtirq)
+ return;
- expires_next = hrtimer_update_next_event(cpu_base);
+ if (expires_next > cpu_base->expires_next)
+ return;
if (skip_equal && expires_next == cpu_base->expires_next)
return;
+ cpu_base->next_timer = next_timer;
cpu_base->expires_next = expires_next;
/*
@@ -689,7 +695,23 @@ hrtimer_force_reprogram(struct hrtimer_cpu_base *cpu_base, int skip_equal)
if (!__hrtimer_hres_active(cpu_base) || cpu_base->hang_detected)
return;
- tick_program_event(cpu_base->expires_next, 1);
+ tick_program_event(expires_next, 1);
+}
+
+/*
+ * Reprogram the event source with checking both queues for the
+ * next event
+ * Called with interrupts disabled and base->lock held
+ */
+static void
+hrtimer_force_reprogram(struct hrtimer_cpu_base *cpu_base, int skip_equal)
+{
+ ktime_t expires_next;
+
+ expires_next = hrtimer_update_next_event(cpu_base);
+
+ __hrtimer_force_reprogram(cpu_base, skip_equal,
+ cpu_base->next_timer, expires_next);
}
/* High resolution timer related functions */
@@ -835,40 +857,7 @@ static void hrtimer_reprogram(struct hrtimer *timer, bool reprogram)
if (base->cpu_base != cpu_base)
return;
- /*
- * If the hrtimer interrupt is running, then it will
- * reevaluate the clock bases and reprogram the clock event
- * device. The callbacks are always executed in hard interrupt
- * context so we don't need an extra check for a running
- * callback.
- */
- if (cpu_base->in_hrtirq)
- return;
-
- if (expires >= cpu_base->expires_next)
- return;
-
- /* Update the pointer to the next expiring timer */
- cpu_base->next_timer = timer;
- cpu_base->expires_next = expires;
-
- /*
- * If hres is not active, hardware does not have to be
- * programmed yet.
- *
- * If a hang was detected in the last timer interrupt then we
- * do not schedule a timer which is earlier than the expiry
- * which we enforced in the hang detection. We want the system
- * to make progress.
- */
- if (!__hrtimer_hres_active(cpu_base) || cpu_base->hang_detected)
- return;
-
- /*
- * Program the timer hardware. We enforce the expiry for
- * events which are already in the past.
- */
- tick_program_event(expires, 1);
+ __hrtimer_force_reprogram(cpu_base, true, timer, expires);
}
/*
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-26 12:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-13 16:55 [PATCH] hrtimer: Update softirq_expires_next correctly after __hrtimer_get_next_event() Maciej Żenczykowski
2021-04-13 17:14 ` Greg KH
2021-04-14 2:49 ` Lorenzo Colitti
2021-04-15 16:47 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-04-20 3:12 ` Maciej Żenczykowski
2021-04-20 6:44 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-04-20 8:15 ` Lorenzo Colitti
2021-04-20 14:19 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-04-21 14:08 ` Lorenzo Colitti
2021-04-21 14:40 ` Lorenzo Colitti
2021-04-21 15:22 ` Greg KH
2021-04-22 0:08 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-04-22 10:07 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-04-22 14:20 ` Lorenzo Colitti
2021-04-22 15:35 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-04-26 8:49 ` [PATCH] hrtimer: Avoid double reprogramming in __hrtimer_start_range_ns() Thomas Gleixner
2021-04-26 9:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-26 12:25 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2021-05-14 19:29 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-04-26 12:33 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-04-26 12:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-26 14:27 ` Thomas Gleixner
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=YIaxL5zcpjbfR1gp@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=anna-maria@linutronix.de \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lorenzo@google.com \
--cc=maze@google.com \
--cc=mikael.beckius@windriver.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=zenczykowski@gmail.com \
/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
Powered by JetHome