On Mon, Apr 04 2022 at 09:02, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sun, 2022-04-03 at 21:51 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> but that's fine and it is overwritten by every timer which is inserted
>> to expire before that. So that's not an issue as the prandom timer is
>> firing and rearmed.
>
> No, as I said before, there's never any timer with base 1 (BASE_DEF) in
> the config we have. The prandom timer is not TIMER_DEFERRABLE (it
> probably could be, but it's not now). There's no deferrable timer at
> all. Once there is at least one, the warning goes away.
Groan. I overlooked the deferrable part. Yes, you are right. next_expiry
of the deferrable base is stale when there is no timer queued up to the
point where base->clk reaches the initial next_expiry value. So the
check is bogus.
Thanks,
tglx
---
--- a/kernel/time/timer.c
+++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
@@ -1724,9 +1724,8 @@ static inline void __run_timers(struct t
/*
* The only possible reason for not finding any expired
* timer at this clk is that all matching timers have been
- * dequeued.
+ * dequeued or no timer has been ever queued.
*/
- WARN_ON_ONCE(!levels && !base->next_expiry_recalc);
base->clk++;
base->next_expiry = __next_timer_interrupt(base);
_______________________________________________
linux-um mailing list
linux-um@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um
