[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fce3d68c-341d-e720-773f-0867e7770c27@codeaurora.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 12:34:21 +0530
From: "Kohli, Gaurav" <gkohli@...eaurora.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: john.stultz@...aro.org, sboyd@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] timers: Clear must_forward_clk inside base lock
On 8/2/2018 12:04 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2018, Gaurav Kohli wrote:
>> Timer wheel base->must_forward_clock is indicating that
>> the base clock might be stale due to a long idle sleep.
>> The forwarding of base clock takes place in softirq of timer
>
> of the base clock takes place in the timer softirq ...
>
>> or when a timer is enqueued to base which is idle. While migrate
>
> to a base ..
>
>> timer from remote CPU to the new base which is idle, then
>
> See below.
>
>> following race can happen:
>>
>> CPU0 CPU1
>> run_timer_softirq timers_dead_cpu
>>
>> base = lock_timer_base(timer);
>> base->must_forward_clk = false
>> if (base->must_forward_clk)
>> forward(base); >>skip
>>
>> migrate_timer_list
>
> I don't know why you insist on migrate_timer_list() being part of the
> picture here.
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for comment.
I agree this can come with normal enqueue of timer as well, will make it
more generic to avoid confuzion and upload new patch for same.
Regards
Gaurav
>
> It's only _ONE_ particular way to observe that issue. But it's not the only
> way. ANY remote enqueue which hits the situation on the other CPU (CPU0 in
> the example) has this problem. Tying it to migrate_timer_list() just
> because you observed it that way is actively misleading. Surely you can add
> a sentence that you observed it in that case, but that's supplemental
> information.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>
--
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center,
Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists