On Sun, 2022-04-03 at 19:13 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> 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?
>
Actually, in a sense, this *is* the case of (just) recalculating
next_expiry, no? We just never set next_expiry_recalc since there was
never any timer on this?
So actually this also makes the warning go away:
--- a/kernel/time/timer.c
+++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
@@ -1729,6 +1733,7 @@ static inline void __run_timers(struct timer_base *base)
WARN_ON_ONCE(!levels && !base->next_expiry_recalc);
base->clk++;
base->next_expiry = __next_timer_interrupt(base);
+ base->next_expiry_recalc = !levels;
while (levels--)
expire_timers(base, heads + levels);
@@ -2005,6 +2010,7 @@ static void __init init_timer_cpu(int cpu)
raw_spin_lock_init(&base->lock);
base->clk = jiffies;
base->next_expiry = base->clk + NEXT_TIMER_MAX_DELTA;
+ base->next_expiry_recalc = true;
timer_base_init_expiry_lock(base);
}
}
johannes
_______________________________________________
linux-um mailing list
linux-um@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um
