Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-73236-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, 20 Feb 2024 16:25:17 +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 v10a] timers: Move marking timer bases idle into
 tick_nohz_stop_tick()
Message-ID: <ZdTEXRtQ9YJ8s939@lothringen>
References: <20240115143743.27827-4-anna-maria@linutronix.de>
 <20240219085236.10624-1-anna-maria@linutronix.de>
 <ZdPYEzno3KqIPo4S@localhost.localdomain>
 <878r3f5s3w.fsf@somnus>
 <ZdSQBD_ZpWvH5SoZ@localhost.localdomain>
 <87zfvv4a45.fsf@somnus>
 <ZdScXhIS_G1cjaWG@localhost.localdomain>
 <87ttm344me.fsf@somnus>
 <ZdTA8N7TkGG66Ay6@lothringen>
 <87o7cb40sx.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: <87o7cb40sx.fsf@somnus>

On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 04:23:26PM +0100, Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote:
> Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 03:00:57PM +0100, Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote:
> >> Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> writes:
> >> 
> >> > Le Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 01:02:18PM +0100, Anna-Maria Behnsen a ?crit :
> >> >> Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> writes:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > Le Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 11:48:19AM +0100, Anna-Maria Behnsen a ?crit :
> >> >> >> Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> writes:
> >> >> >> diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> >> >> >> index 01fb50c1b17e..b93f0e6f273f 100644
> >> >> >> --- a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> >> >> >> +++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> >> >> >> @@ -895,21 +895,6 @@ static void tick_nohz_stop_tick(struct tick_sched *ts, int cpu)
> >> >> >>  	/* Make sure we won't be trying to stop it twice in a row. */
> >> >> >>  	ts->timer_expires_base = 0;
> >> >> >>  
> >> >> >> -	/*
> >> >> >> -	 * If this CPU is the one which updates jiffies, then give up
> >> >> >> -	 * the assignment and let it be taken by the CPU which runs
> >> >> >> -	 * the tick timer next, which might be this CPU as well. If we
> >> >> >> -	 * don't drop this here, the jiffies might be stale and
> >> >> >> -	 * do_timer() never gets invoked. Keep track of the fact that it
> >> >> >> -	 * was the one which had the do_timer() duty last.
> >> >> >> -	 */
> >> >> >> -	if (cpu == tick_do_timer_cpu) {
> >> >> >> -		tick_do_timer_cpu = TICK_DO_TIMER_NONE;
> >> >> >> -		ts->do_timer_last = 1;
> >> >> >> -	} else if (tick_do_timer_cpu != TICK_DO_TIMER_NONE) {
> >> >> >> -		ts->do_timer_last = 0;
> >> >> >> -	}
> >> >> >> -
> >> >> >>  	/* Skip reprogram of event if it's not changed */
> >> >> >>  	if (ts->tick_stopped && (expires == ts->next_tick)) {
> >> >> >>  		/* Sanity check: make sure clockevent is actually programmed */
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That should work but then you lose the optimization that resets
> >> >> > ts->do_timer_last even if the next timer hasn't changed.
> >> >> >
> >> >> 
> >> >> Beside of this optimization thing, I see onther problem. But I'm not
> >> >> sure, if I understood it correctly: When the CPU drops the
> >> >> tick_do_timer_cpu assignment and stops the tick, it is possible, that
> >> >> this CPU nevertheless executes tick_sched_do_timer() and then reassigns
> >> >> to tick_do_timer_cpu?
> >> >
> >> > Yes but in this case a timer interrupt has executed and ts->next_tick
> >> > is cleared, so the above skip reprogramm branch is not taken.
> >> >
> >> 
> >> Yes... So I need to change it without dropping the
> >> optimization. Otherwise someone might complain about it.
> >> 
> >> Two possible solutions:
> >> 
> >> a) split out this if/else thing for dropping the tick_do_timer_cpu
> >>    assignment into a separate function and call it:
> >>    - before the return in the skip reprogramm branch
> >>    - and after the if clause which contains stopping the tick (where it
> >>      is executed in the current proposal)
> >> 
> >> b) Take my current proposal and add before the return in the skip
> >>    reprogramm branch the following lines:
> >> 
> >>    if (tick_do_timer_cpu != TICK_DO_TIMER_NONE)
> >>    	ts->do_timer_last = 0;
> >> 
> >>    as the first part of the tick_do_timer_cpu/last logic shouldn't be
> >>    required (because then also ts->next_tick is already cleared).
> >> 
> >> What do you prefere? Or do you prefere something else?
> >
> > Wouldn't the following work? If timer_idle is false, then the tick isn't
> > even stopped and there is nothing to do? So you can early return.
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> > index fdd57f1af1d7..1b2984acafbd 100644
> > --- a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> > +++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> > @@ -924,6 +924,9 @@ static void tick_nohz_stop_tick(struct tick_sched *ts, int cpu)
> >  		expires = ts->timer_expires;
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	if (!timer_idle)
> > +		return;
> > +
> >  	/*
> >  	 * If this CPU is the one which updates jiffies, then give up
> >  	 * the assignment and let it be taken by the CPU which runs
> 
> Yes... And then I can drop the if (!timer_idle) thing inside
> !ts->tick_stopped branch.
> 

Right!