Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 Nov 2022 18:13:12 +0100 | From | Frederic Weisbecker <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 14/16] timer: Implement the hierarchical pull model |
| |
On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 06:02:11PM +0100, Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote: > On Tue, 8 Nov 2022, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 03:57:35PM +0100, Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote: > > > @@ -1859,6 +1863,36 @@ void forward_and_idle_timer_bases(unsigned long basej, u64 basem, > > > */ > > > is_idle = time_after(nextevt, basej + 1); > > > > > > + if (is_idle) { > > > + u64 next_tmigr; > > > + > > > + next_tmigr = tmigr_cpu_deactivate(tevt->global); > > > + > > > + tevt->global = KTIME_MAX; > > > + > > > + /* > > > + * If CPU is the last going idle in timer migration > > > + * hierarchy, make sure CPU will wake up in time to handle > > > + * remote timers. next_tmigr == KTIME_MAX if other CPUs are > > > + * still active. > > > + */ > > > + if (next_tmigr < tevt->local) { > > > + u64 tmp; > > > + > > > + /* If we missed a tick already, force 0 delta */ > > > + if (next_tmigr < basem) > > > + next_tmigr = basem; > > > + > > > + tmp = div_u64(next_tmigr - basem, TICK_NSEC); > > > + > > > + nextevt = basej + (unsigned long)tmp; > > > + tevt->local = next_tmigr; > > > + is_idle = time_after(nextevt, basej + 1); > > > > So after that, tevt->global shouldn't matter anymore for tick_nohz_next_event(), > > right? If so then probably that line can go away (with a comment specifying why we can > > ignore the global part)?: > > > > tevt.local = min_t(u64, tevt.local, tevt.global); > > > > tevt->global is set to KTIME_MAX anyway. So the whole tevt information is > also no longer required in tick_nohz_next_event(). I need to rework the > patch where this was introduced. Then the forward_and_idle_timer_bases() > could still simply return the next timer and then there is no longer a > point against using your idea with naming of the functions.
You got it! ;-)
| |