Re: [PATCH v5 16/18] timer: Implement the hierarchical pull model

[Frederic Weisbecker]

Le Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 03:49:38PM +0100, Anna-Maria Behnsen a écrit :
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2023, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 
> > Le Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 03:17:42PM +0100, Anna-Maria Behnsen a écrit :
> > > diff --git a/kernel/time/timer_migration.c b/kernel/time/timer_migration.c
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..5a600de3623b
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/kernel/time/timer_migration.c
> > > +static bool tmigr_active_up(struct tmigr_group *group,
> > > +			    struct tmigr_group *child,
> > > +			    void *ptr)
> > > +{
> > > +	union tmigr_state curstate, newstate;
> > > +	struct tmigr_walk *data = ptr;
> > > +	bool walk_done;
> > > +	u32 childmask;
> > > +
> > > +	childmask = data->childmask;
> > > +	newstate = curstate = data->groupstate;
> > > +
> > > +retry:
> > > +	walk_done = true;
> > > +
> > > +	if (newstate.migrator == TMIGR_NONE) {
> > > +		newstate.migrator = (u8)childmask;
> > > +
> > > +		/* Changes need to be propagated */
> > > +		walk_done = false;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	newstate.active |= (u8)childmask;
> > > +
> > > +	newstate.seq++;
> > 
> > Are you sure you need this seq counter? What bad scenario can happen without it?
> > 
> 
> Without the seq counter we might get an inconsistent overall state of the
> groups when the order of propagating two changes of the child to the parent
> changes. To clarify what I mean, let me give you an example what happens
> without seqcount (maybe this should be described more detailed in the union
> tmigr_state description...).
> 
> Let's take three groups and four CPUs (CPU2 and CPU3 as well as Group C
> will not change during the scenario):
> 
>    	      	  Group A
> 		  migrator = Group B
> 		  active = Group B, Group C
> 	       /             \
>     Group B			Group C
>     migrator = CPU0		migrator = CPU2
>     active = CPU0		active = CPU2
>      /    \ 			 /  \
>    CPU0   CPU1	 	      CPU2  CPU3
>   active  idle               active idle
> 
> 
> 1. CPU0 goes idle (changes are updated in Group B; afterwards current
> states of Group B and Group A are stored in the data for walking the
> hierarchy):
> 
>    	      	  Group A
> 		  migrator = Group B
> 		  active = Group B, Group C
> 	       /             \
>     Group B			Group C
> ->  migrator = TMIGR_NONE	migrator = CPU2
> ->  active =    		active = CPU2
>      /    \ 			 /  \
>    CPU0   CPU1	 	      CPU2  CPU3
> -> idle   idle               active idle
> 
> 
> 2. CPU1 comes out of idle (changes are update in Group B; afterwards
> current states of Group B and Group A are stored in the data for walking
> the hierarchy):
> 
>    	      	  Group A
> 		  migrator = Group B
> 		  active = Group B, Group C
> 	       /             \
>     Group B			Group C
> ->  migrator = CPU1		migrator = CPU2
> ->  active = CPU1   		active = CPU2
>      /    \ 			 /  \
>    CPU0   CPU1	 	      CPU2  CPU3
>    idle -> active            active idle
> 
> 
> 3. Here comes the change of the order: Propagating the changes of
>    2. through the hierarchy to group A - nothing to be done, because Group
>    B is already up to date.
> 
> 4. Propagating the changes of 1. through the hierarchy to group A:
> 
>    	      	  Group A
> 	      ->  migrator = Group C
> 	      ->  active =  Group C
> 	       /             \
>     Group B			Group C
>     migrator = CPU1		migrator = CPU2
>     active = CPU1   		active = CPU2
>      /    \ 			 /  \
>    CPU0   CPU1	 	      CPU2  CPU3
>    idle  active              active idle
> 
> And now we have this inconsistent overall state..

Ooh I see now. Also that can't ever wrap up since you can only ever have no more than 8 racers
competing on a given node.

Tricky ;)