Commit d124c339 authored by Anna-Maria Behnsen's avatar Anna-Maria Behnsen Committed by Thomas Gleixner

timers: Do not IPI for deferrable timers

Deferrable timers do not prevent CPU from going idle and are not taken into
account on idle path. Sending an IPI to a remote CPU when a new first
deferrable timer was enqueued will wake up the remote CPU but nothing will
be done regarding the deferrable timers.

Drop IPI completely when a new first deferrable timer was enqueued.
Signed-off-by: default avatarAnna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: default avatarThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: default avatarFrederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231201092654.34614-7-anna-maria@linutronix.de
parent b573c731
......@@ -571,18 +571,15 @@ static int calc_wheel_index(unsigned long expires, unsigned long clk,
static void
trigger_dyntick_cpu(struct timer_base *base, struct timer_list *timer)
{
if (!is_timers_nohz_active())
return;
/*
* TODO: This wants some optimizing similar to the code below, but we
* will do that when we switch from push to pull for deferrable timers.
* Deferrable timers do not prevent the CPU from entering dynticks and
* are not taken into account on the idle/nohz_full path. An IPI when a
* new deferrable timer is enqueued will wake up the remote CPU but
* nothing will be done with the deferrable timer base. Therefore skip
* the remote IPI for deferrable timers completely.
*/
if (timer->flags & TIMER_DEFERRABLE) {
if (tick_nohz_full_cpu(base->cpu))
wake_up_nohz_cpu(base->cpu);
if (!is_timers_nohz_active() || timer->flags & TIMER_DEFERRABLE)
return;
}
/*
* We might have to IPI the remote CPU if the base is idle and the
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment