timers: Do not IPI for deferrable timers

JIRA: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-33787

commit d124c33
Author: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>
Date:   Fri Dec 1 10:26:28 2023 +0100

    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: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>
    Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
    Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
    Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231201092654.34614-7-anna-maria@linutronix.de

Signed-off-by: Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>

Author: auldp

kernel/time/timer.c

@@ -548,18 +548,15 @@ 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