Commit 2ac2dccc authored by Anna-Maria Gleixner's avatar Anna-Maria Gleixner Committed by Ingo Molnar

hrtimer: Make remote enqueue decision less restrictive

The current decision whether a timer can be queued on a remote CPU checks
for timer->expiry <= remote_cpu_base.expires_next.

This is too restrictive because a timer with the same expiry time as an
existing timer will be enqueued on right-hand size of the existing timer
inside the rbtree, i.e. behind the first expiring timer.

So its safe to allow enqueuing timers with the same expiry time as the
first expiring timer on a remote CPU base.
Signed-off-by: default avatarAnna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@linutronix.de>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: keescook@chromium.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171221104205.7269-22-anna-maria@linutronix.deSigned-off-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
parent 14c80341
......@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ hrtimer_check_target(struct hrtimer *timer, struct hrtimer_clock_base *new_base)
ktime_t expires;
expires = ktime_sub(hrtimer_get_expires(timer), new_base->offset);
return expires <= new_base->cpu_base->expires_next;
return expires < new_base->cpu_base->expires_next;
}
static inline
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment