| Date | Tue, 16 Jan 2018 02:02:38 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 02/36] hrtimer: Correct blantanly wrong comment |
| |
* Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@linutronix.de> wrote:
> 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(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/time/hrtimer.c b/kernel/time/hrtimer.c > index 69d203d8b12d..aee49c0c58b9 100644 > --- a/kernel/time/hrtimer.c > +++ b/kernel/time/hrtimer.c > @@ -1195,9 +1195,9 @@ static void __run_hrtimer(struct hrtimer_cpu_base *cpu_base, > 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.
Small, nit:
s/cpu/CPU
to keep the capitalization consistent within the same sentence.
Thanks,
Ingo
|