Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Dec 2023 14:37:01 +0100 | From | Frederic Weisbecker <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v9 12/32] timers: Fix nextevt calculation when no timers are pending |
| |
On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 02:21:25PM +0100, Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote: > Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> writes: > > > Le Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 12:53:03PM +0100, Anna-Maria Behnsen a écrit : > >> > >> Frederic, what do you think? > > > > So it looks like is_idle must be fixed. > > > > As for the timer softirq, ->next_expiry is already unreliable because when > > a timer is removed, ->next_expiry is not updated (even though that removed > > timer might have been the earliest). So ->next_expiry can already carry a > > "too early" value. The only constraint is that ->next_expiry can't be later > > than the first timer. > > > > So I'd rather put a comment somewhere about the fact that wrapping is expected > > to behave ok. But it's your call. > > Ok. If both solutions are fine, I would like to take the solution with > updating the next_expiry values for empty bases. It will make the > compare of expiry values of global and local timer base easier in one of > the patches later on.
Fine by me at least!
Thanks.
> Thanks, > > Anna-Maria >
| |