All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
	kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] tick: Remove pointless cpu valid check in hotplug code
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 23:31:55 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201211223155.GC595642@lothringen> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201206212002.582579516@linutronix.de>

On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 10:12:54PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> tick_handover_do_timer() which is invoked when a CPU is unplugged has a
> check for cpumask_first(cpu_online_mask) when it tries to hand over the
> tick update duty.
> 
> Checking the result of cpumask_first() there is pointless because if the
> online mask is empty at this point, then this would be the last CPU in the
> system going offline, which is impossible. There is always at least one CPU
> remaining. If online mask would be really empty then the timer duty would
> be the least of the resulting problems.
> 
> Remove the well meant check simply because it is pointless and confusing.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> ---
>  kernel/time/tick-common.c |   10 +++-------
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> --- a/kernel/time/tick-common.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/tick-common.c
> @@ -407,17 +407,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tick_broadcast_oneshot
>  /*
>   * Transfer the do_timer job away from a dying cpu.
>   *
> - * Called with interrupts disabled. Not locking required. If
> + * Called with interrupts disabled. No locking required. If
>   * tick_do_timer_cpu is owned by this cpu, nothing can change it.
>   */
>  void tick_handover_do_timer(void)
>  {
> -	if (tick_do_timer_cpu == smp_processor_id()) {
> -		int cpu = cpumask_first(cpu_online_mask);
> -
> -		tick_do_timer_cpu = (cpu < nr_cpu_ids) ? cpu :
> -			TICK_DO_TIMER_NONE;
> -	}
> +	if (tick_do_timer_cpu == smp_processor_id())
> +		tick_do_timer_cpu = cpumask_first(cpu_online_mask);
>  }

BTW since we have that, why do we need:

static bool can_stop_idle_tick(int cpu, struct tick_sched *ts)
{
	/*
	 * If this CPU is offline and it is the one which updates
	 * jiffies, then give up the assignment and let it be taken by
	 * the CPU which runs the tick timer next. If we don't drop
	 * this here the jiffies might be stale and do_timer() never
	 * invoked.
	 */
	if (unlikely(!cpu_online(cpu))) {
		if (cpu == tick_do_timer_cpu)
			tick_do_timer_cpu = TICK_DO_TIMER_NONE;


We should only enter idle with an offline CPU after calling
tick_handover_do_timer() so (cpu == tick_do_timer_cpu) shouldn't be possible.

Or am I missing something?

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-12-11 23:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-12-06 21:12 [patch 0/3] tick: Annotate and document the intentionaly racy tick_do_timer_cpu Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-06 21:12 ` [patch 1/3] tick: Remove pointless cpu valid check in hotplug code Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-07 11:59   ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-07 17:44     ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-11 22:21   ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-12-12  0:16     ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-12  1:20       ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-12-11 22:31   ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2020-12-16 10:50   ` [tip: timers/urgent] " tip-bot2 for Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-06 21:12 ` [patch 2/3] tick/sched: Remove bogus boot "safety" check Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-11 22:41   ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-12-16 10:50   ` [tip: timers/urgent] " tip-bot2 for Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-06 21:12 ` [patch 3/3] tick: Annotate tick_do_timer_cpu data races Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-07 12:09   ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-07 17:46     ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-07 18:19       ` Marco Elver
2020-12-07 19:43         ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-07 19:44         ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-12-07 21:46           ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-07 22:38             ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-12-07 22:46               ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-07 22:55                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-12-08  8:11           ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-08 15:03             ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-12-16  0:27               ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-16 21:19                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-12-16 21:23                   ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-16 21:32                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-12-17 10:48                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-17 14:59                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-12-08  8:01         ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-07 11:05 ` [patch 0/3] tick: Annotate and document the intentionaly racy tick_do_timer_cpu Marco Elver

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=20201211223155.GC595642@lothringen \
    --to=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=elver@google.com \
    --cc=kasan-dev@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=naresh.kamboju@linaro.org \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=will@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 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.