[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20171129153101.27297-22-anna-maria@linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 16:30:46 +0100
From: Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, keescook@...omium.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
Subject: [PATCH v3 21/36] hrtimer: Make remote enqueue decision less restrictive
The current decision whether a timer can be queued on a remote CPU checks
for timer->expiry <= remote_cpu_base.expires_next.
This is too restrictive because a timer with the same expiry time as an
existing timer will be enqueued on right-hand size of the existing timer
inside the rbtree, i.e. behind the first expiring timer.
So its safe to allow enqueuing timers with the same expiry time as the
first expiring timer on a remote CPU base.
Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
---
kernel/time/hrtimer.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/time/hrtimer.c b/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
index 90a8aa9a7fa2..e0521d8f247b 100644
--- a/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
+++ b/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ hrtimer_check_target(struct hrtimer *timer, struct hrtimer_clock_base *new_base)
ktime_t expires;
expires = ktime_sub(hrtimer_get_expires(timer), new_base->offset);
- return expires <= new_base->cpu_base->expires_next;
+ return expires < new_base->cpu_base->expires_next;
}
static inline
--
2.11.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists