Re: [PATCH v10 18/20] timers: Implement the hierarchical pull model

Anna-Maria Behnsen
2024-02-01T20:53:03Z

Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> writes:

> Le Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 05:15:37PM +0100, Anna-Maria Behnsen a écrit :
>> Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> writes:
>>
>> > Le Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 03:37:41PM +0100, Anna-Maria Behnsen a écrit :
>> >> +static void tmigr_connect_child_parent(struct tmigr_group *child,
>> >> + struct tmigr_group *parent)
>> >> +{
>> >> + union tmigr_state childstate;
>> >> +
>> >> + raw_spin_lock_irq(&child->lock);
>> >> + raw_spin_lock_nested(&parent->lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
>> >> +
>> >> + child->parent = parent;
>> >> + child->childmask = BIT(parent->num_children++);
>> >> +
>> >> + raw_spin_unlock(&parent->lock);
>> >> + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&child->lock);
>> >> +
>> >> + /*
>> >> + * To prevent inconsistent states, active children need to be active in
>> >> + * the new parent as well. Inactive children are already marked inactive
>> >> + * in the parent group.
>> >> + */
>> >> + childstate.state = atomic_read(&child->migr_state);
>> >> + if (childstate.migrator != TMIGR_NONE) {
>> >
>> > Is it possible here to connect a running online child (not one that we just
>> > created) to a new parent?
>>
>> connect_child_parent() is only executed for the just created ones. So,
>> yes in theory this would be possible, but it doesn't happen as
>> tmigr_setup_groups() takes care to make it right (hopefully :)). When a
>> LVL0 group has some space left, only the connection between tmc and the
>> LVL0 group is done in tmigr_setup_groups(). If there is no space left in
>> LVL0 group, then a new group is created and depending on the levels
>> which has to be created only executed for the new ones.
>>
>> > If not, is it possible that a newly created child is
>> > not TMIGR_NONE?
>>
>> Yes. See tmigr_cpu_online(). When new groups have to be created starting
>> from LVL0, then they are not active - so TMIGR_NONE is set. Activating
>> the new online CPU is done afterwards.
>>
>> But if it is required to add also a new level at the top, then it is
>> mandatory to propagate the active state of the already existing child to
>> the new parent. The connect_child_parent() is then also executed for the
>> formerly top level group (child) to the newly created group (parent).
>
> Ah and this is why we have the "if (childstate.migrator != TMIGR_NONE)"
> branch, right?

yes - I see, comments would be helpful here :)

>> > Heh, I was about to say that it's impossible that timer_base_is_idle()
>> > at this stage but actually if we run in nohz_full...
>> >
>> > It happens so that nohz_full is deactivated until rcutree_online_cpu()
>> > which calls tick_dep_clear() but it's a pure coincidence that might
>> > disappear one day. So yes, let's keep it that way.
>>
>> I instrumented the code (with NOHZ FULL and NOHZ_IDLE) to make sure the
>> timer migration hierarchy state 'idle' is in sync with the timer base
>> 'idle'. And this was one part where it was possible that it runs out of
>> sync as I remember correctly. But if I understood you correctly, this
>> shouldn't happen at the moment?
>
> Well, it's not supposed to :-)

Hmm, let me double check this and run the tests on the instrumented
version...

Thanks,

Anna-Maria