[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohponHP9yhjrRt_igvA9554DwU7cUUR=VC4cLOapcgXBrZxA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 19:53:59 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Linaro Kernel Mailman List <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] hrtimer: update '->active_bases' before calling hrtimer_force_reprogram()
On 2 April 2015 at 19:46, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> So then I'm not seeing how its a bug. Sure __hrtimer_get_next_event()
> will iterate all the bases again, and it will not skip the just empty
> one. But I don't see how that is anything but an inefficiency. By virtue
> of the base being empty it cannot find an event there, so its a
> pointless check.
>
> What am I missing?
Hmm. It was a bug for me because I was doing this unconditionally:
timer = container_of(timerqueue_getnext(&base->active),
+ struct hrtimer, node);
And this will give a container-of over NULL, as timerqueue_getnext() can
return NULL..
And so it will crash in my case.
But I understand your point, its inefficiency only :(
--
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