Message-ID: <55810CAA.6010208@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:29:06 +0530
From: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] nohz: Evaluate tick dependency once on context switch
References: <1434044168-23173-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <1434044168-23173-8-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <5579F3A5.7010103@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <5579F3A5.7010103@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2028
Lines: 51

On 06/12/2015 02:16 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 06/11/2015 01:36 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> The tick dependency is evaluated on every irq. This is a batch of checks
>> which determine whether it is safe to stop the tick or not. These checks
>> are often split in many details: posix cpu timers, scheduler, sched clock,
>> perf events. Each of which are made of smaller details: posix cpu
>> timer involves checking process wide timers then thread wide timers. Perf
>> involves checking freq events then more per cpu details.
>>
>> Checking these details every time we update the full dynticks state
>> bring avoidable overhead.
>>
>> So lets evaluate these dependencies once on context switch. Then the
>> further dependency checks will be performed through a single state check.
>>
>> This is a first step that can be later optimized by dividing task level
>> dependency, CPU level dependency and global dependency and update
>> each at the right time.
> 
>> +static void tick_nohz_full_update_dependencies(void)
>> +{
>> +	struct tick_sched *ts = this_cpu_ptr(&tick_cpu_sched);
>> +
>> +	if (!posix_cpu_timers_can_stop_tick(current))
>> +		ts->tick_needed |= TICK_NEEDED_POSIX_CPU_TIMER;
>> +
>> +	if (!perf_event_can_stop_tick())
>> +		ts->tick_needed |= TICK_NEEDED_PERF_EVENT;
>> +
>> +	if (!sched_can_stop_tick())
>> +		ts->tick_needed |= TICK_NEEDED_SCHED;
>>  
> 
> I see this getting kicked from task work and from ipi
> context, but does it get kicked on task wakeup, when
> we have a second runnable task on a CPU, but we decide
> not to preempt the currently running task to switch to
> it yet, but we will want to preempt the currently running
> task at a later point in time?

+1. This is not taken care of as far as I can see too.

Regards
Preeti U Murthy
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/