Re: powerpc: mitigate impact of decrementer reset

[Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>]

On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 11:06 -0600, Paul Clarke wrote:
> Sorry it took me so long to get back to this...
> 
> On 10/07/2014 09:52 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-07-10 at 19:13:24 UTC, Paul Clarke wrote:
> >> This patch short-circuits the reset of the decrementer, exiting after
> >> the decrementer reset, but before the housekeeping tasks if the only
> >> need for the interrupt is simply to reset it.  After this patch,
> >> the latency spike was measured at about 150 nanoseconds.
> 
> > Thanks for the excellent changelog. But this patch makes me a bit nervous :)
> >
> > Do you know where the latency is coming from? Is it primarily the irq work?
> 
> Yes, it is all under irq_enter (measured at ~10us) and irq_exit (~12us).

Hmm, OK. I actually meant irq_work_run().

AIUI irq_enter/exit() are just state tracking, they shouldn't be actually
running work.

How are you measuring it?

> > If so I'd prefer if we could move the short circuit into __timer_interrupt()
> > itself. That way we'd still have the trace points usable, and it would
> > hopefully result in less duplicated logic.
> 
> But irq_enter and irq_exit are called in timer_interrupt, before 
> __timer_interrupt is called.  I don't see how that helps.  The time 
> spent in __timer_interrupt is minuscule by comparison.

Right, it won't help if it's irq_enter() that is causing the delay. But I was
assuming it was irq_work_run().

> Are you suggesting that irq_enter/exit be moved into __timer_interrupt 
> as well?  (I'm not sure how that would impact the existing call to 
> __timer_interrupt from tick_broadcast_ipi_handler?  And if there is no 
> impact, what's the point of separating timer_interrupt and 
> __timer_interrupt?)

The point is __timer_interrupt() is called from tick_broadcast_ipi_handler(),
which is called from smp_ipi_demux(), from icp_hv_ipi_action(), from
__do_irq(), which has already done irq_enter() (and will do irq_exit()).

cheers