On Mon, 13 Apr 2015, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> On 04/09/2015 02:48 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Apr 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 09:20:39AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>> if at least one base is active (on my fairly standard system all cpus
> >>> have at least one active hrtimer base all the time - and many cpus
> >>> have two bases active), then we run hrtimer_get_softirq_time(), which
> >>> dirties the cachelines of all 4 clock bases:
> >>>
> >>> base->clock_base[HRTIMER_BASE_REALTIME].softirq_time = xtim;
> >>> base->clock_base[HRTIMER_BASE_MONOTONIC].softirq_time = mono;
> >>> base->clock_base[HRTIMER_BASE_BOOTTIME].softirq_time = boot;
> >>> base->clock_base[HRTIMER_BASE_TAI].softirq_time = tai;
> >>>
> >>> so in practice we not only touch every cacheline in every timer
> >>> interrupt, but we _dirty_ them, even the inactive ones.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Urgh we should really _really_ kill that entire softirq mess.
> >
> > That's the !highres part. We cannot kill that one unless we remove all
> > support for machines which do not provide hardware for highres
> > support.
> >
> > Now the softirq_time thing is an optimization which we added back in
> > the days when hrtimer went into the tree and Roman complained about
> > the base->get_time() invocation being overkill.
> >
> > The reasoning behing this was that low resolution systems do not need
> > accurate time for the expiry and the forwarding because everything
> > happens tick aligned.
> >
> > So for !HIGHRES we have:
> >
> > static inline ktime_t hrtimer_cb_get_time(struct hrtimer *timer)
> > {
> > return timer->base->softirq_time;
> > }
>
> Why is this called softirq_time when the hrtimer is being serviced in
> the hard irq context ?
For historical reasons.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
