All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: tglx@linutronix.de (Thomas Gleixner)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: too many timer retries happen when do local timer swtich with broadcast timer
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 19:52:14 +0100 (CET)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1302221946070.22263@ionos> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130222152639.GH12140@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com>

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 03:03:02PM +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:07:30PM +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > Now we could make use of that and avoid going deep idle just to come
> > > > back right away via the IPI. Unfortunately the notification thingy has
> > > > no return value, but we can fix that.
> > > > 
> > > > To confirm that theory, could you please try the hack below and add
> > > > some instrumentation (trace_printk)?
> > > 
> > > Applied, and it looks like that's exactly why the warning triggers, at least
> > > on the platform I am testing on which is a dual-cluster ARM testchip.
> > > 
> > > There is a still time window though where the CPU (the IPI target) can get
> > > back to idle (tick_broadcast_pending still not set) before the CPU target of
> > > the broadcast has a chance to run tick_handle_oneshot_broadcast (and set
> > > tick_broadcast_pending), or am I missing something ?
> > 
> > Well, the tick_broadcast_pending bit is uninteresting if the
> > force_broadcast bit is set. Because if that bit is set we know for
> > sure, that we got woken with the cpu which gets the broadcast timer
> > and raced back to idle before the broadcast handler managed to
> > send the IPI.
> 
> Gah, my bad sorry, I mixed things up. I thought
> 
> tick_check_broadcast_pending()
> 
> was checking against the tick_broadcast_pending mask not
> 
> tick_force_broadcast_mask

Yep, that's a misnomer. I just wanted to make sure that my theory is
correct. I need to think about the real solution some more.

We have two alternatives:

1) Make the clockevents_notify function have a return value.

2) Add something like the hack I gave you with a proper name.

The latter has the beauty, that we just need to modify the platform
independent idle code instead of going down to every callsite of the
clockevents_notify thing.

Thanks,

	tglx

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Cc: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>,
	Jason Liu <liu.h.jason@gmail.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: too many timer retries happen when do local timer swtich with broadcast timer
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 19:52:14 +0100 (CET)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1302221946070.22263@ionos> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130222152639.GH12140@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com>

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 03:03:02PM +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:07:30PM +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > Now we could make use of that and avoid going deep idle just to come
> > > > back right away via the IPI. Unfortunately the notification thingy has
> > > > no return value, but we can fix that.
> > > > 
> > > > To confirm that theory, could you please try the hack below and add
> > > > some instrumentation (trace_printk)?
> > > 
> > > Applied, and it looks like that's exactly why the warning triggers, at least
> > > on the platform I am testing on which is a dual-cluster ARM testchip.
> > > 
> > > There is a still time window though where the CPU (the IPI target) can get
> > > back to idle (tick_broadcast_pending still not set) before the CPU target of
> > > the broadcast has a chance to run tick_handle_oneshot_broadcast (and set
> > > tick_broadcast_pending), or am I missing something ?
> > 
> > Well, the tick_broadcast_pending bit is uninteresting if the
> > force_broadcast bit is set. Because if that bit is set we know for
> > sure, that we got woken with the cpu which gets the broadcast timer
> > and raced back to idle before the broadcast handler managed to
> > send the IPI.
> 
> Gah, my bad sorry, I mixed things up. I thought
> 
> tick_check_broadcast_pending()
> 
> was checking against the tick_broadcast_pending mask not
> 
> tick_force_broadcast_mask

Yep, that's a misnomer. I just wanted to make sure that my theory is
correct. I need to think about the real solution some more.

We have two alternatives:

1) Make the clockevents_notify function have a return value.

2) Add something like the hack I gave you with a proper name.

The latter has the beauty, that we just need to modify the platform
independent idle code instead of going down to every callsite of the
clockevents_notify thing.

Thanks,

	tglx

  reply	other threads:[~2013-02-22 18:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-02-20 11:16 too many timer retries happen when do local timer swtich with broadcast timer Jason Liu
2013-02-20 11:16 ` Jason Liu
2013-02-20 13:33 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-02-20 13:33   ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-02-21  6:16   ` Jason Liu
2013-02-21  6:16     ` Jason Liu
2013-02-21  9:36     ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-02-21  9:36       ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-02-21 10:50       ` Jason Liu
2013-02-21 10:50         ` Jason Liu
2013-02-21 13:48         ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-02-21 13:48           ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-02-21 15:12           ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-02-21 15:12             ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-02-21 22:19             ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-02-21 22:19               ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-02-22 10:07               ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-02-22 10:07                 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-02-22 10:24                 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-02-22 10:24                   ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-02-22 10:30                   ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-02-22 10:30                     ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-02-22 10:31                   ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2013-02-22 10:31                     ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2013-02-22 11:02                     ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-02-22 11:02                       ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-02-22 12:07                       ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-02-22 12:07                         ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-02-22 14:48                         ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2013-02-22 14:48                           ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2013-02-22 15:03                           ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-02-22 15:03                             ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-02-22 15:26                             ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2013-02-22 15:26                               ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2013-02-22 18:52                               ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2013-02-22 18:52                                 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-02-25  6:12                                 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-02-25  6:12                                   ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-02-25  6:38                                 ` Jason Liu
2013-02-25  6:38                                   ` Jason Liu
2013-02-25 13:34                                 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2013-02-25 13:34                                   ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2013-02-22 10:28               ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2013-02-22 10:28                 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2013-02-22 10:26           ` Jason Liu
2013-02-22 10:26             ` Jason Liu
2013-02-21 10:35     ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2013-02-21 10:35       ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2013-02-21 10:49       ` Jason Liu
2013-02-21 10:49         ` Jason Liu

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=alpine.LFD.2.02.1302221946070.22263@ionos \
    --to=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.