On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 09:56:57PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Sat, 2016-12-24 at 17:15 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > When the tick is stopped and an interrupt occurs afterward, we check > > on > > that interrupt exit if the next tick needs to be rescheduled. If it > > doesn't need any update, we don't want to do anything. > > > > In order to check if the tick needs an update, we compare it against > > the > > clockevent device deadline. Now that's a problem because the > > clockevent > > device is at a lower level than the tick itself if it is implemented > > on top of hrtimer. > > Ohhhhh, good find. That is one subtle bug.
Oh yeah, it took me several month to debug that one :-) ! > > Acked-by: Rik van Riel <r...@redhat.com> Thanks! > > -- > All Rights Reversed.
