[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZYLrz24qc8VQ_BIc@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 14:27:43 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@...e.cz>,
Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>,
"Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...el.com>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 03/32] tick-sched: Warn when next tick seems to be in
the past
Le Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 10:26:25AM +0100, Anna-Maria Behnsen a écrit :
> When the next tick is in the past, the delta between basemono and the next
> tick gets negativ. But the next tick should never be in the past. The
> negative effect of a wrong next tick might be a stop of the tick and timers
> might expire late.
>
> To prevent expensive debugging when changing underlying code, add a
> WARN_ON_ONCE into this code path. To prevent complete misbehaviour, also
> reset next_tick to basemono in this case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
> ---
> v9: Add reset of next_tick to basemono
> ---
> kernel/time/tick-sched.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> index 89517cfb6510..b1b591de781e 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> @@ -839,6 +839,10 @@ static ktime_t tick_nohz_next_event(struct tick_sched *ts, int cpu)
> ts->next_timer = next_tick;
> }
>
> + /* Make sure next_tick is never before basemono! */
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(basemono > next_tick))
> + next_tick = basemono;
> +
Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
And some food for thoughts:
1) Is it possible for hrtimer_get_next_event() to return values in the past?
2) Is hrtimer_get_next_event() unconditionally locking &cpu_base->lock even
high resolution is active? Can we avoid that?
Thanks.
> /*
> * If the tick is due in the next period, keep it ticking or
> * force prod the timer.
> --
> 2.39.2
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists