[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YNnxbzgckC3+Rh+7@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 17:57:35 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] posix-cpu-timers: Recalc next expiration when
timer_settime() ends up not queueing
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 01:41:55AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> include/linux/posix-timers.h | 7 +++++-
> kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 2 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/posix-timers.h b/include/linux/posix-timers.h
> index 4cf1fbe8d1bc..00fef0064355 100644
> --- a/include/linux/posix-timers.h
> +++ b/include/linux/posix-timers.h
> @@ -82,9 +82,14 @@ static inline bool cpu_timer_enqueue(struct timerqueue_head *head,
> return timerqueue_add(head, &ctmr->node);
> }
>
> +static inline bool cpu_timer_queued(struct cpu_timer *ctmr)
> +{
> + return !!ctmr->head;
Sad that we can't check sighand lock here... but I agree that adding
that will be messy :/
> +}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists