From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] posix-cpu-timers: Don't start process wide cputime counter if timer is disabled
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 13:26:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YMnf5vW3MUyuKUa5@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210616105116.GA801071@lothringen>
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 12:51:16PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 10:51:21AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > The cpu_timer_enqueue() is in arm_timer() and the condition for calling
> > that is:
> >
> > 'new_expires != 0 && val < new_expires'
> >
> > Which is not the same as the one you add.
>
> There are two different things here:
>
> 1) the threadgroup cputime counter, activated by cpu_clock_sample_group(clkid,
> p, true)
>
> 2) the expiration set (+ the callback enqueued) in arm_timer()
>
> The issue here is that we go through 1) but not through 2)
Correct, but then I would think the cleanup would need the same
conditions as 2, and not something slightly different, which is what
confused me.
> > I'm thinking the fundamental problem here is the disconnect between
> > cpu_timer_enqueue() and pct->timers_active ?
>
> You're right it's the core issue. But what prevents the whole to be
> fundamentally connected is a circular dependency: we need to know the
> threadgroup cputime before arming the timer, but we would need to know
> if we arm the timer before starting the threadgroup cputime counter
>
> To sum up, the current sequence is:
>
> * fetch the threadgroup cputime AND start the whole threadgroup counter
>
> * arm the timer if it isn't zero and it hasn't yet expired
>
> While the ideal sequence should be:
>
> * fetch the threadgroup cputime (without starting the whole threadgroup counter
> yet)
>
> * arm the timer if it isn't zero and it hasn't yet expired
>
> * iff we armed the timer, start the whole theadgroup counter
>
> But that means re-iterating the whole threadgroup and update atomically
> the group counter with each task's time.
Right, so by the time patch #5 comes around, you seem to be at the point
where you can do:
* fetch cputime and start threadgroup counter
* possibly arm timer
* if expired:
- fire now
- if armed, disarm (which leads to stop)
Which is the other 'obvious' solution to not starting it.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-16 11:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-04 11:31 [PATCH 0/6] posix-cpu-timers: Bunch of fixes Frederic Weisbecker
2021-06-04 11:31 ` [PATCH 1/6] posix-cpu-timers: Fix rearm racing against process tick Frederic Weisbecker
2021-06-09 11:54 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-06-11 11:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-11 12:37 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-06-04 11:31 ` [PATCH 2/6] posix-cpu-timers: Don't start process wide cputime counter if timer is disabled Frederic Weisbecker
2021-06-09 12:18 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-06-10 10:24 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-06-16 8:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-16 10:51 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-06-16 11:26 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2021-06-16 11:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-04 11:31 ` [PATCH 3/6] posix-cpu-timers: Force next_expiration recalc after timer deletion Frederic Weisbecker
2021-06-16 9:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-04 11:31 ` [PATCH 4/6] posix-cpu-timers: Force next_expiration recalc after timer reset Frederic Weisbecker
2021-06-16 9:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-16 11:21 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-06-16 11:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-04 11:31 ` [PATCH 5/6] posix-cpu-timers: Force next expiration recalc after early timer firing Frederic Weisbecker
2021-06-16 9:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-16 11:59 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-06-16 13:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-16 14:53 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-06-04 11:31 ` [PATCH 6/6] posix-cpu-timers: Force next expiration recalc after itimer reset Frederic Weisbecker
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=YMnf5vW3MUyuKUa5@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--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
Powered by JetHome