lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
Subject[PATCH v2 01/37] hrtimer: Correct blantanly wrong comment
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>

The protection of a hrtimer which runs its callback against migration to a
different CPU has nothing to do with hard interrupt context.

The protection against migration of a hrtimer running the expiry callback
is the pointer in the cpu_base which holds a pointer to the currently
running timer. This pointer is evaluated in the code which potentially
switches the timer base and makes sure it's kept on the CPU on which the
callback is running.

Reported-by: Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@linutronix.de>
---
kernel/time/hrtimer.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
+++ b/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
@@ -1204,9 +1204,9 @@ static void __run_hrtimer(struct hrtimer
timer->is_rel = false;

/*
- * Because we run timers from hardirq context, there is no chance
- * they get migrated to another cpu, therefore its safe to unlock
- * the timer base.
+ * The timer is marked as running in the cpu base, so it is
+ * protected against migration to a different CPU even if the lock
+ * is dropped.
*/
raw_spin_unlock(&cpu_base->lock);
trace_hrtimer_expire_entry(timer, now);

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-22 23:49    [W:0.197 / U:9.088 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site