Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-55099-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 15:21:50 +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: <ZcJAflq1vLx3k-cl@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20240115143743.27827-1-anna-maria@linutronix.de>
 <20240115143743.27827-19-anna-maria@linutronix.de>
 <ZcAQZ8-gbEYaQflu@pavilion.home>
 <87eddp3ju0.fsf@somnus>
 <ZcIyWJxeLy4GaTbM@localhost.localdomain>
 <878r3x3cl8.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: <878r3x3cl8.fsf@somnus>

Le Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 03:13:23PM +0100, Anna-Maria Behnsen a ?crit :
> When remote is not set, and the group is not active (but it's not top
> level), walk_done will be set to true. Then goto check_toplevel. There
> walk_done and the groupstate migrator check is both true. But it is not
> top level... and the next goto unlock will also not happen and
> data->firstexp will be set. No?

Bah yes of course, walk_done doesn't mean we are in the top then, you're right.

> 
> >> 
> >> There is another issue in here. When the event could be ignored and it
> >> is propagated because of e.g. remote timer handling, then the timerqueue
> >> dance is done nevertheless. It's not a big problem (as the ignore flag
> >> is set and event is removed of queue when revisting the timer queue),
> >> but its obviously more work than it is required to have.
> >
> > Right. I guess it doesn't hurt to delete it from the timerqueue if present and
> > then update group->next_expiry accordingly. But it's certainly not useful
> > to requeue it :-)
> >
> 
> This would be the plan to keep the delete but drop the requeue in this
> case.
> 
> With those two things, the tmigr_update_events() wants to be changed a
> little more.

For the best!

Thanks.