Patch "tick/sched: Reduce seqcount held scope in tick_do_update_jiffies64()" has been added to the 5.10-stable tree

[Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>]

This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled

    tick/sched: Reduce seqcount held scope in tick_do_update_jiffies64()

to the 5.10-stable tree which can be found at:
    http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary

The filename of the patch is:
     tick-sched-reduce-seqcount-held-scope-in-tick_do_upd.patch
and it can be found in the queue-5.10 subdirectory.

If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it.



commit 12bbe7f697c74348f271f9282c570a3362750a99
Author: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date:   Tue Nov 17 14:19:46 2020 +0100

    tick/sched: Reduce seqcount held scope in tick_do_update_jiffies64()
    
    [ Upstream commit 94ad2e3cedb82af034f6d97c58022f162b669f9b ]
    
    If jiffies are up to date already (caller lost the race against another
    CPU) there is no point to change the sequence count. Doing that just forces
    other CPUs into the seqcount retry loop in tick_nohz_next_event() for
    nothing.
    
    Just bail out early.
    
    [ tglx: Rewrote most of it ]
    
    Signed-off-by: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@xxxxxxxxxx>
    Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201117132006.462195901@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Stable-dep-of: e9523a0d8189 ("tick/common: Align tick period with the HZ tick.")
    Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>

diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
index 4f1b6170b3a20..ac9953f6f92ce 100644
--- a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
+++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
@@ -84,38 +84,35 @@ static void tick_do_update_jiffies64(ktime_t now)
 
 	/* Reevaluate with jiffies_lock held */
 	raw_spin_lock(&jiffies_lock);
+	if (ktime_before(now, tick_next_period)) {
+		raw_spin_unlock(&jiffies_lock);
+		return;
+	}
+
 	write_seqcount_begin(&jiffies_seq);
 
-	delta = ktime_sub(now, last_jiffies_update);
-	if (delta >= tick_period) {
+	last_jiffies_update = ktime_add(last_jiffies_update, tick_period);
 
-		delta = ktime_sub(delta, tick_period);
-		last_jiffies_update = ktime_add(last_jiffies_update,
-						tick_period);
+	delta = ktime_sub(now, tick_next_period);
+	if (unlikely(delta >= tick_period)) {
+		/* Slow path for long idle sleep times */
+		s64 incr = ktime_to_ns(tick_period);
 
-		/* Slow path for long timeouts */
-		if (unlikely(delta >= tick_period)) {
-			s64 incr = ktime_to_ns(tick_period);
+		ticks = ktime_divns(delta, incr);
 
-			ticks = ktime_divns(delta, incr);
+		last_jiffies_update = ktime_add_ns(last_jiffies_update,
+						   incr * ticks);
+	}
 
-			last_jiffies_update = ktime_add_ns(last_jiffies_update,
-							   incr * ticks);
-		}
-		do_timer(++ticks);
+	do_timer(++ticks);
+
+	/*
+	 * Keep the tick_next_period variable up to date.  WRITE_ONCE()
+	 * pairs with the READ_ONCE() in the lockless quick check above.
+	 */
+	WRITE_ONCE(tick_next_period,
+		   ktime_add(last_jiffies_update, tick_period));
 
-		/*
-		 * Keep the tick_next_period variable up to date.
-		 * WRITE_ONCE() pairs with the READ_ONCE() in the lockless
-		 * quick check above.
-		 */
-		WRITE_ONCE(tick_next_period,
-			   ktime_add(last_jiffies_update, tick_period));
-	} else {
-		write_seqcount_end(&jiffies_seq);
-		raw_spin_unlock(&jiffies_lock);
-		return;
-	}
 	write_seqcount_end(&jiffies_seq);
 	raw_spin_unlock(&jiffies_lock);
 	update_wall_time();