diff mbox series

[v5,14/18] timer: Check if timers base is handled already

Message ID 20230301141744.16063-15-anna-maria@linutronix.de
State New
Headers
Series timer: Move from a push remote at enqueue to a pull at expiry model |

Commit Message

Anna-Maria Behnsen March 1, 2023, 2:17 p.m. UTC 
  Due to the conversion of the NOHZ timer placement to a pull at expiry
time model, the per CPU timer bases with non pinned timers are no
longer handled only by the local CPU. In case a remote CPU already
expires the non pinned timers base of the local cpu, nothing more
needs to be done by the local CPU. A check at the begin of the expire
timers routine is required, because timer base lock is dropped before
executing the timer callback function.

This is a preparatory work, but has no functional impact right now.

Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>
---
 kernel/time/timer.c | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

Comments

Peter Zijlstra March 21, 2023, 2:43 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 03:17:40PM +0100, Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote:
> Due to the conversion of the NOHZ timer placement to a pull at expiry
> time model, the per CPU timer bases with non pinned timers are no
> longer handled only by the local CPU. In case a remote CPU already
> expires the non pinned timers base of the local cpu, nothing more
> needs to be done by the local CPU. A check at the begin of the expire
> timers routine is required, because timer base lock is dropped before
> executing the timer callback function.
> 
> This is a preparatory work, but has no functional impact right now.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>
> ---
>  kernel/time/timer.c | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/time/timer.c b/kernel/time/timer.c
> index be085e94afcc..9553da99e262 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/timer.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
> @@ -2144,6 +2144,9 @@ static inline void __run_timers(struct timer_base *base)
>  
>  	lockdep_assert_held(&base->lock);
>  
> +	if (!!base->running_timer)
> +		return;

You can leave out the double-negation, 'if (base->running_timer)' is
equivalent and reads much easier.

>  	while (time_after_eq(jiffies, base->clk) &&
>  	       time_after_eq(jiffies, base->next_expiry)) {
>  		levels = collect_expired_timers(base, heads);
> -- 
> 2.30.2
>
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/kernel/time/timer.c b/kernel/time/timer.c
index be085e94afcc..9553da99e262 100644
--- a/kernel/time/timer.c
+++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
@@ -2144,6 +2144,9 @@  static inline void __run_timers(struct timer_base *base)
 
 	lockdep_assert_held(&base->lock);
 
+	if (!!base->running_timer)
+		return;
+
 	while (time_after_eq(jiffies, base->clk) &&
 	       time_after_eq(jiffies, base->next_expiry)) {
 		levels = collect_expired_timers(base, heads);