On Sun, 2022-04-03 at 18:18 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Sat, Apr 02 2022 at 16:09, Johannes Berg wrote: > > At init, we get > > > > init_timer_cpu(0) base 0 clk=0xffff8ad0, next_expiry=0x13fff8acf > > init_timer_cpu(0) base 1 clk=0xffff8ad0, next_expiry=0x13fff8acf > > > > which makes sense, jiffies is set up to wrap very quickly after boot. > > > > The warning triggers when we have jiffies=0x13fff9600, so it's just > > after the "next_expiry", so in this code: > > which does not make sense.
If you say so, I have no idea :) > If next_expiry is 0x13fff8acf and jiffies > advanced to 0x13fff9600 when the warning triggered, then either it > missed to expire the timer at 0x13fff8acf or it failed to recalculate > next_expiry. There was no timer. If there's ever a timer on this base (BASE_DEF) then this doesn't happen. So it has to be the latter, but I'm trying to understand in the code where it would*ever* recalculate next_expiry if it in fact never expires? > Could you enable all [hr]timer tracepoints on the kernel command line, > set panic on warn and ftrace_dump_on_oops which should spill out the > tracebuffer on the console and provide the output. That should at least > give us an hint what's going on. > Sure, but since we simulate ~50 days of uptime, that's a massive number of events and lots of them are not there: https://p.sipsolutions.net/fb491cbbde82c600.txt johannes _______________________________________________ linux-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um
