Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.32 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.32;
Date:   Mon, 4 Dec 2023 18:52:46 +0100
From:   Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To:     Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>
Cc:     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 <frederic@kernel.org>,
        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>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com>,
        K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 16/32] timers: Optimization for
 timer_base_try_to_set_idle()
Message-ID: <20231204175246.J_8wNRQp@linutronix.de>
References: <20231201092654.34614-1-anna-maria@linutronix.de>
 <20231201092654.34614-17-anna-maria@linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231201092654.34614-17-anna-maria@linutronix.de>
Precedence: bulk

On 2023-12-01 10:26:38 [+0100], Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote:
> When tick is stopped also the timer base is_idle flag is set. When
> reentering the timer_base_try_to_set_idle() with the tick stopped, there is
> no need to check whether the timer base needs to be set idle again. When a
> timer was enqueued in the meantime, this is already handled by the
> nohz_get_next_event() call which was executed before tick_nohz_stop_tick().

as of #15 tick_stopped is set later in tick_nohz_stop_tick() and both
(tick_sched::tick_stopped and timer_base::is_idle) are cleared in
tick_nohz_restart_sched_tick().

Then we have tick_nohz_idle_retain_tick() with only one caller and is
only clearing timer_base::is_idle. Now, wouldn't it make sense to
preload timer_idle based on timer_base::is_idle?

I don't know if it there is a different outcome if timer_base::is_idle
gets cleared in the idle path vs tick_sched::tick_stopped.
I can't find nohz_get_next_event().

> Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>

Sebastian