Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 15 May 2023 14:41:33 +0200
From:   Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To:     Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@suse.cz>,
        Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>,
        "Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 19/21] timer: Implement the hierarchical pull model
Message-ID: <20230515124133.XkKOksjW@linutronix.de>
References: <20230510072817.116056-1-anna-maria@linutronix.de>
 <20230510072817.116056-20-anna-maria@linutronix.de>
 <ZFty1fNMlnuLk4qF@localhost.localdomain>
 <20230515101936.3amAvw0T@linutronix.de>
 <398d7731-f5ca-a34-9e4-77da60c49d21@linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <398d7731-f5ca-a34-9e4-77da60c49d21@linutronix.de>
Precedence: bulk

On 2023-05-15 12:50:25 [+0200], Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote:
> The part will be replaced by:
>=20
> ---8<----
>=20
> 	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.

> 	raw_spin_lock(&tmc->lock);
>=20
> 	if (!tmc->online || !tmc->idle) {
> 		timer_unlock_remote_bases(cpu);
> 		goto unlock;
> 	} else {
> 	        fetch_next_timer_interrupt_remote(jif, now, &tevt, cpu);
> 	}
>=20
> 	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=E2=80=A6

> 	-> do the preparation and the walk
>=20
> unlock:
> 	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&tmc->lock);
>=20
> ---8<----
>=20
> As menitoned in the reply last week to Frederics objections regarding the
> locking asymmetry, I would like to keep it to make the locking region of
> timer base locks as small as possible and to prevent holding up to five
> locks during the walk.

This looks okay. I wouldn't suggest to hold the timer_base::lock or
tmigr_cpu::lock longer than needed. Both can be acquired independently
cross CPU and have explicit locking order. So it is fine.

> Thanks,
>=20
> 	Anna-Maria

Sebastian