Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-44843-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:29:59 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
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>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	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 v10 18/20] timers: Implement the hierarchical pull model
Message-ID: <ZbkV9wVxFhQxujb3@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20240115143743.27827-1-anna-maria@linutronix.de>
 <20240115143743.27827-19-anna-maria@linutronix.de>
 <ZbJwol4QoSgz0QlH@lothringen>
 <877cjtcuv4.fsf@somnus>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <877cjtcuv4.fsf@somnus>

Le Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 04:58:55PM +0100, Anna-Maria Behnsen a ?crit :
> Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> writes:
> >> +
> >> +			if (tmigr_check_lonely(topgroup))
> >> +				return READ_ONCE(topgroup->next_expiry);
> 
> When I hand in tevt->global as a parameter, I'll need to compare the
> first expiry of the toplevel group and the tevt->global value and return
> the earlier expiry. Only a single child is active in top level, so it
> might be that this CPU is the last active CPU in hierarchy.
> 
> I didn't check all the way to the top whether all groups are
> 'lonely'. So when the top level group has only a single active child, it
> is also possible that the child of the top level group has two active
> children... Then a return of KTIME_MAX would be also a more precise
> forecast.
> 
> This quick check is there to keep the overhead minimal when checking
> whether it might be possible to go idle. So I don't know, if we should
> add this additional check per level (which is pretty simple when using
> group->parent for walking the hierarchy). What do you think?

Not sure. Maybe if the tree never exceeds 3 levels (does it?) it's ok to
do the walk?

Thanks.