Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-185132-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: zhuqiuer1@huawei.com, anna-maria@linutronix.de, frederic@kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: zhuqiuer1@huawei.com
Subject: Re: Question: One-jiffy latency from the checking in
 run_local_timers()
In-Reply-To: <20240520132040.259477-1-zhuqiuer1@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 17:02:50 +0200
Message-ID: <871q5vi4x1.ffs@tglx>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Mon, May 20 2024 at 21:20, zhuqiuer1@huawei.com wrote:
> Hi there, the function "kernel/time/timer.c:run_local_timers" avoids
> raising a softirq when there are no timers set to expire at the
> current time.  It achieves this by comparing the current "jiffies"
> with "base->next_expiry".  However, when working with SMP, it is
> possible that a few CPUs are reading the jiffies while it is being
> incremented.  These CPUs may read the old-jiffies value in
> "run_local_timers" and fail to invoke expired timers at this jiffy.
> This results in a one-jiffy latency for the timers.

Sure, but one tick latency is not the end of the world. What is the real
world problem caused by that?

> Can we simply add 1 to the "jiffies" value when we compare it with
> next_expiry?  This may result in an unnecessary softirq being raised
> if a timer expires in the next jiffy, but can remove the one-jiffy
> latency.  Not sure if this is a positive trade-off.

What guarantees that the jiffies increment has happened when the soft
interrupt is invoked at the end of the tick interrupt?

Nothing, especially not in virtualized environments.

So I rather keep it simple unless there is a real world problem to be
solved.

Thanks,

        tglx