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 S1755087AbbDUME1 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:04:27 -0400
Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:57816 "EHLO
	Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752005AbbDUMEZ (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:04:25 -0400
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:04:41 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatt@redhat.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 20/39] tick: nohz: Rework next timer evaluation
In-Reply-To: <20150416164216.GA23685@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1504211353590.13914@nanos>
References: <20150414203303.702062272@linutronix.de> <20150414203502.184198593@linutronix.de> <20150416164216.GA23685@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0
X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: -
X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required,  ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 16 Apr 2015, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > @@ -1508,11 +1509,12 @@ int rcu_needs_cpu(unsigned long *dj)
> > 
> >  	/* Request timer delay depending on laziness, and round. */
> >  	if (!rdtp->all_lazy) {
> > -		*dj = round_up(rcu_idle_gp_delay + jiffies,
> > +		dj = round_up(rcu_idle_gp_delay + jiffies,
> >  			       rcu_idle_gp_delay) - jiffies;
> >  	} else {
> > -		*dj = round_jiffies(rcu_idle_lazy_gp_delay + jiffies) - jiffies;
> > +		dj = round_jiffies(rcu_idle_lazy_gp_delay + jiffies) - jiffies;
> >  	}
> > +	*nextevt = basemono + dj * TICK_NSEC;
> 
> The multiply would have been a problem back in the day, but should
> be just fine on modern hardware.  I suppose that slow hardware could
> compensate by having the scheduling-clock period be an exact power of
> two worth of nanoseconds.

I don't think the extra multiply matters much. round_up() and
round_jiffies() are way more expensive ...
 
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL
> > +	/* Limit the tick delta to the maximum scheduler deferment */
> >  	if (!ts->inidle)
> > -		time_delta = min(time_delta, scheduler_tick_max_deferment());
> > +		delta = min(time_delta, scheduler_tick_max_deferment());
> 
> s/time_delta/delta/?

Doh, yes.

Btw. Could you please trim your replies? It's hard to find the single
line comment when forced to scroll down several pages.

Thanks,

	tglx