[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4b4df775-53b8-cdeb-381b-af8cabb364a8@ni.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 15:25:50 -0500
From: Haris Okanovic <haris.okanovic@...com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
julia.cartwright@...com, gratian.crisan@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "timers: Don't wake ktimersoftd on every tick"
Oh crap. I think I see the problem. I decrement expired_count before
processing the list. Dropping the lock permits another run of
tick_find_expired()->find_expired_timers() in the middle of
__expire_timers() since it uses expired_count==0 as a condition.
This should fix it, but I'll wait for Anna-Maria's test next week before
submitting a patch.
> static void expire_timers(struct timer_base *base)
> {
> struct hlist_head *head;
> + int expCount = base->expired_count;
>
> - while (base->expired_count--) {
> - head = base->expired_lists + base->expired_count;
> + while (expCount--) {
> + head = base->expired_lists + expCount;
> __expire_timers(base, head);
> }
> base->expired_count = 0;
> }
Thanks,
Haris
On 05/26/2017 02:49 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2017, Haris Okanovic wrote:
>
>> Anna-Maria,
>>
>> Look-ahead is implemented by tick_find_expired() and expiry by __run_timers(),
>> both of which hold timer_base::lock (raw spin lock) while running. Those two
>> routines shouldn't be able to run simultaneously on the same timer_base. Are
>> you sure the race isn't in another code path?
>
> It happens when softirq runs and drops the spinlock to call the timer
> function. And from there stuff goes down the drain.
>
> Anna-Maria will send you the test case on monday.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists