Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 7 Jun 2023 15:54:15 +0200 | From | Frederic Weisbecker <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v7 19/21] timer: Implement the hierarchical pull model |
| |
Le Wed, May 24, 2023 at 09:06:27AM +0200, Anna-Maria Behnsen a écrit : > +/* > + * Returns true, if there is nothing to be propagated to the next level > + * > + * @data->nextexp is reset to KTIME_MAX; it is reused for first global > + * event which needs to be handled by migrator (in toplevel group) > + * > + * This is the only place where group event expiry value is set. > + */ > +static bool tmigr_update_events(struct tmigr_group *group, > + struct tmigr_group *child, > + struct tmigr_walk *data) > +{ > + struct tmigr_event *evt, *first_childevt; > + bool walk_done, remote = data->remote; > + u64 nextexp; > + > + if (child) { > + if (data->childstate.active) > + return true; > + > + raw_spin_lock(&child->lock); > + raw_spin_lock_nested(&group->lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING); > + > + first_childevt = tmigr_next_groupevt(child); > + nextexp = child->next_expiry; > + evt = &child->groupevt; > + } else { > + nextexp = data->nextexp; > + > + /* > + * Set @data->nextexp to KTIME_MAX; it is reused for first > + * global event which needs to be handled by migrator (in > + * toplevel group) > + */ > + data->nextexp = KTIME_MAX; > + > + first_childevt = evt = data->evt; > + > + /* > + * Walking the hierarchy is required in any case, when a > + * remote expiry was done before.
You can probably remove that comma because it feels like breaking the condition link.
> + * This ensures to not lost
lose
> + * already queued events in non active groups (see section > + * "Required event and timerqueue update after remote > + * expiry" in documentation at the top). > + */ > + if (evt->ignore && !remote)
It looks like in the case of !remote, this branch will never end up stopping the propagation up because either:
* We come here from tmigr_inactive_up() which takes care of the propagation.
or
* We come here from tmigr_new_timer() and ->ignore can't be set.
If I'm right, can we add a comment about that so that the poor reviewer doesn't stutter on that for too long?
Thanks.
> + return true;
| |