Re: [PATCH v2 RESEND/RFC] timer: make deferrable cpu unbound timers really not bound to a cpu

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014, Joonwoo Park wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +static struct tvec_base *tvec_base_deferral = &boot_tvec_bases;
> +#endif

In principle I like the idea of a deferrable wheel, but this
implementation is going to go nowhere.

First of all making it SMP only is silly. The deferrable stuff is a
pain in other places as well.

But whats way worse is:

> +static inline void __run_timers(struct tvec_base *base, bool try)
>  {
>  	struct timer_list *timer;
>  
> -	spin_lock_irq(&base->lock);
> +	if (!try)
> +		spin_lock_irq(&base->lock);
> +	else if (!spin_trylock_irq(&base->lock))
> +		return;

Yuck. All cpus fighting about a single spinlock roughly at the same
time? You just created a proper thundering herd cacheline bouncing
issue. 

No way. We have already mechanisms in place to deal with such
problems, you just have to use them.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/