Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH 2/2] tick: Make sure tick timer is active when bypassing reprogramming




On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:

> So far we have run into too much troubles with the optimization path
> that skips reprogramming the clock on IRQ exit when the expiration
> deadline hasn't changed. If by accident the cached deadline happens to
> be out of sync with the hardware deadline, the buggy result and its
> cause are hard to investigate. So lets detect and warn about the issue
> early.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Tim Wright <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx>
> Cc: James Hartsock <hartsjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  kernel/time/tick-sched.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> index 502b320..eb1366e 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> @@ -783,8 +783,10 @@ static ktime_t tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick(struct tick_sched *ts,
>  	tick = expires;
>  
>  	/* Skip reprogram of event if its not changed */
> -	if (ts->tick_stopped && (expires == ts->next_tick))
> +	if (ts->tick_stopped && (expires == ts->next_tick)) {
> +		WARN_ON_ONCE(dev->next_event > ts->next_tick);

What about handling it proper ? dev->next_event might be KTIME_MAX,
i.e. no more event for the next 500+ years.

Thanks,

	tglx