From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org>
Cc: Joe Talbott <joetalbott@gmail.com>,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, lkp@intel.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:sched/hrtick] [hrtimer] 2889243848: stress-ng.timermix.ops_per_sec 30.1% regression
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2026 13:15:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260311121500.GF652779@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260311105819.GL606826@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 11:58:19AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Hmm. The original code preserved hang_detected until the next timer
> > interrupt to prevent rearming when a new timer is queued.
>
> Oh indeed. And that avoids __hrtimer_reprogram() from coming in and
> 'destroying' the delay I suppose.
>
> Let me poke at this a little more then.
How's this then?
---
Subject: hrtimer: Less agressive interrupt 'hang' handling
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2026 20:02:21 +0100
When the hrtimer_interrupt needs to restart more than 3 times and
still has expired timers, the interrupt is considered hung. To give
the system a little time to recover, the hardware timer is programmed
a little into the future.
Prior to commit 288924384856 ("hrtimer: Re-arrange
hrtimer_interrupt()"), this was relative to the amount of time spend
serving the interrupt with a max of 100 msec.
However, in order to simplify, and because this condition 'should' not
happen, the timeout was unconditionally set to 100 msec.
'Obviously' there is a benchmark that hits this hard, by programming a
ton of very short timers :-/
Since reprogramming is decoupled from the interrupt handling, the
actual execution time is lost, however the code does track
max_hang_time. Using that, rather than the 100 ms max restores
performance.
stress-ng --timeout 60 --times --verify --metrics --no-rand-seed --timermix 64
bogo ops/s
288924384856^1: 23715979.93
288924384856: 11550049.77
patched: 23361116.78
Additionally, Thomas noted that we should not clear ->hang_detected
until the next interrupt, such that __hrtimer_reprogram() won't undo
the extra delay.
Fixes: 288924384856 ("hrtimer: Re-arrange hrtimer_interrupt()")
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202603102229.74b9dee4-lkp@intel.com
Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---
kernel/time/hrtimer.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
+++ b/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
@@ -2031,8 +2031,8 @@ static void hrtimer_rearm(struct hrtimer
* Give the system a chance to do something else than looping
* on hrtimer interrupts.
*/
- expires_next = ktime_add_ns(ktime_get(), 100 * NSEC_PER_MSEC);
- cpu_base->hang_detected = false;
+ expires_next = ktime_add_ns(ktime_get(),
+ min(100 * NSEC_PER_MSEC, cpu_base->max_hang_time));
}
hrtimer_rearm_event(expires_next, deferred);
}
@@ -2121,6 +2121,7 @@ void hrtimer_interrupt(struct clock_even
*/
now = hrtimer_update_base(cpu_base);
expires_next = hrtimer_update_next_event(cpu_base);
+ cpu_base->hang_detected = false;
if (expires_next < now) {
if (++retries < 3)
goto retry;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-11 12:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-10 14:46 [tip:sched/hrtick] [hrtimer] 2889243848: stress-ng.timermix.ops_per_sec 30.1% regression kernel test robot
2026-03-10 15:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-03-10 17:11 ` Joe Talbott
2026-03-10 18:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-03-10 18:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-03-10 19:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-03-11 9:40 ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-03-11 10:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-03-11 12:15 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2026-03-11 20:16 ` [tip: sched/hrtick] hrtimer: Less agressive interrupt 'hang' handling tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
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=20260311121500.GF652779@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=joetalbott@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox