Re: [PATCH 1/5] hrtimer: per-cpu cached values of ktime

[Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>]

On Sat, 2009-05-09 at 12:45 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 8 May 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > The regular (hrtimer driven) tick calls ktime_get() 4 times:
> > 
> > hrtimer_interupt()
> >   ktimer_get()
> >   __run_hrtimer()
> >     tick_sched_timer()
> >       ktimer_get()
> >       update_process_times()
> >         run_local_timers()
> >         rcu_pending()
> >         printk_tick()
> >         scheduler_tick()
> >           sched_clock_tick()
> >             ktime_get()
> >           perf_counter_task_tick()
> >         run_posix_cpu_timers()
> >       profile_tick()
> >       hrtimer_forward()
> >     hrtimer_enqueue()
> >       tick_program_event()
> >         tick_dev_program_event()
> >           ktime_get()
> > 
> > Reduce that to 2 by caching the 1st ktime_get(). By clearing the state on
> > irq_exit() this always works, even for !hrtimer ticks.
> 
> Ugh. This looks pretty horrid. That special-case cache is just nasty.
> 
> Would it be entirely impossible to just instead do ktime_get() once at the 
> top and just pass it down. Yes, yes, it would involve calling convention 
> changes, but that sounds way saner than having an ad-hoc cache like this.
> 
> With this, you now have magic rules for when you can use the "get from 
> cache" version, and time goes backwards if you mix them by mistake (ie you 
> use a non-caching "ktime_get()" in between two caching "ktime_irq_get()" 
> calls, and now time will have gone backwards from the second to the third 
> case).
> 
> It just seems to be very hacky.

Agreed.. but that would mean passing it down to every hrtimer callback
function, most of whoem won't be interested in it. Furthermore, we'd
have to audit all other 'legacy' timer functions -- but so be it I
guess.

Also, I've had a report that this patch causes some funnies, so there's
definitely something fishy.

I'll look at doing this differently.