On Sun, 2014-05-11 at 14:13 +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote: > > Isn't this patch required too? > > @@ -503,12 +503,13 @@ void __timer_interrupt(void) > now = *next_tb - now; > if (now <= DECREMENTER_MAX) > set_dec((int)now); > - /* We may have raced with new irq work */ > - if (test_irq_work_pending()) > - set_dec(1); > __get_cpu_var(irq_stat).timer_irqs_others++; > } > > + /* We may have raced with new irq work */ > + if (test_irq_work_pending()) > + set_dec(1); > + > > The event_handler cannot be relied upon to call > decrementer_set_next_event() all the time. This is in the case where > there are no pending timers. In that case we need to have the check on > irq work pending at the end of __timer_interrupt() no?
I don't think we need to move the test no. If there's a pending irq_work, at that point, it will have done set_dec when being queued up. So we only care about cases where we might change the decrementer. If the event handler doesn't call decrementer_set_next_event() then nothing will modify the decrementer and it will still trigger soon. Cheers, Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
