On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:31:37 +0100
Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote:
> internal_add_timer(timer) updates base->next_timer only if
> timer->expires < base->next_timer. This is correct, but it also
> makes sense to do the same if we add the first non-deferrable
> timer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com>
Makes sense.
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org>
-- Steve
> ---
> kernel/timer.c | 4 ++--
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/timer.c b/kernel/timer.c
> index 6582b82..9492d57 100644
> --- a/kernel/timer.c
> +++ b/kernel/timer.c
> @@ -388,9 +388,9 @@ static void internal_add_timer(struct tvec_base *base,
> struct timer_list *timer)
> * Update base->active_timers and base->next_timer
> */
> if (!tbase_get_deferrable(timer->base)) {
> - if (time_before(timer->expires, base->next_timer))
> + if (!base->active_timers++ ||
> + time_before(timer->expires, base->next_timer))
> base->next_timer = timer->expires;
> - base->active_timers++;
> }
> }
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
