[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1501221144210.5526@nanos>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:45:16 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: vigneshr@...eaurora.org
cc: stfomichev@...dex-team.ru, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
john.stultz@...aro.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
fweisbec@...il.com, mingo@...nel.org, cl@...ux.com,
psodagud@...eaurora.org, sboyd@...eaurora.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] hrtimers: calculate expires_next after all timers
are executed
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015, vigneshr@...eaurora.org wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> In this patch, we are only setting the flag
> cpu_base->in_hrtirq = 1; in hrtimer_interrupt() and not resetting it.
>
>
> > @@ -1251,9 +1251,9 @@ void hrtimer_interrupt(struct clock_even
> > dev->next_event.tv64 = KTIME_MAX;
> >
> > raw_spin_lock(&cpu_base->lock);
> > + cpu_base->in_hrtirq = 1;
>
> Since this is the case, after the hrtimer_interrupt routine completes and
> new timer is started and say it happens to be leftmost,
> we don't allow hrtimer_reprogram() since we bail out given that
> cpu_base->in_hrtirq=1 :
>
> timer irq comes
> --->hrtimer_interrupt()
> ---->cpu_base->in_hrtirq flag is set
> ------>Interrupt is serviced
>
> After sometime
>
> -->__hrtimer_start_range_ns()
> --->happens to be leftmost hence call hrtimer_enqueue_reprogram()
> ----->hrtimer_reprogram()
> ------->bail out since cpu_base->in_hrtirq flag is stil set
>
> At the end of hrtimer interrupt routine, i think we should also clear this
> flag.
Bah, yes. I moved it around several times and then dropped it.
Thanks for spotting it!
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists