From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754902AbbDICm7 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 8 Apr 2015 22:42:59 -0400
Received: from mail-ob0-f178.google.com ([209.85.214.178]:34292 "EHLO
	mail-ob0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753787AbbDICm4 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 8 Apr 2015 22:42:56 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1504082019220.3845@nanos>
References: <cover.1428039899.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
	<b884675ccbd86069d7e9ff6b0de35760c5d6a959.1428039899.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
	<alpine.DEB.2.11.1504082019220.3845@nanos>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 08:12:55 +0530
Message-ID: <CAKohpo=FDge8MNfMQPhGFxeZPrqdq8bLDoviaLKEmBd_ug6ZRA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] hrtimer: Iterate only over active clock-bases
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Linaro Kernel Mailman List <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 9 April 2015 at 01:41, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> I'm really not too excited about this incomprehensible macro mess and
> especially not about the code it generates.
>
>                 x86_64  i386    ARM     power
>
> Mainline        7668    6942    8077    10253
>
> + Patch         8068    7294    8313    10861
>
>                 +400    +352    +236     +608
>
> That's insane.

After Peter's mail yesterday, I did check it on x86_64 and it surely
looked a lot bigger.

> What's wrong with just adding
>
>         if (!(cpu_base->active_bases & (1 << i)))
>                 continue;
>
> to the iterating sites?
>
> Index: linux/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
> +++ linux/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
> @@ -451,6 +451,9 @@ static ktime_t __hrtimer_get_next_event(
>                 struct timerqueue_node *next;
>                 struct hrtimer *timer;
>
> +               if (!(cpu_base->active_bases & (1 << i)))
> +                       continue;
> +
>                 next = timerqueue_getnext(&base->active);
>                 if (!next)
>                         continue;

Isn't the check we already have here lightweight enough for this ?
timerqueue_getnext() returns head->next..

What benefit are we getting with this extra check ?

Maybe we can drop 'active_bases' from struct hrtimer_cpu_base ?

'active_bases' can be used effectively, if we can quit early from this
loop, i.e. by checking for !active_bases on every iteration.

But that generates a lot more code and is probably not that helpful
for small loop size that we have here.

--
viresh