On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 18:05:03 +0200
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The base lock is dropped during the invocation if the timer. That means
> it is possible that we have one waiter while timer1 is running and once
> this one finished, we get another waiter while timer2 is running. Since
> we wake up only one waiter it is possible that we miss the other one.
> This will probably heal itself over time because most of the time we
> complete timers without an active wake up.
> To avoid the scenario where we don't wake up all waiters at once,
> wake_up_all() is used.
>
> Cc: stable-rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> kernel/time/timer.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/time/timer.c b/kernel/time/timer.c
> index 5f9d3599ef0a..b3c3d3a6216f 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/timer.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
> @@ -1051,7 +1051,7 @@ static void wait_for_running_timer(struct timer_list *timer)
> base->running_timer != timer);
> }
>
> -# define wakeup_timer_waiters(b) wake_up(&(b)->wait_for_running_timer)
> +# define wakeup_timer_waiters(b) wake_up_all(&(b)->wait_for_running_timer)
OK, I just received this patch (way after patch 2)
I'm assuming that patch two was done such that you don't do a
"wake_up_all" under a spinlock.
-- Steve
> #else
> static inline void wait_for_running_timer(struct timer_list *timer)
> {
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
