Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 10:19:26PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
>> @@ -1096,6 +1099,12 @@ static void __run_posix_cpu_timers(struc
>> check_process_timers(tsk, &firing);
>>
>> /*
>> + * Allow new work to be scheduled. The expiry cache
>> + * is up to date.
>> + */
>> + posix_cpu_timers_enable_work(tsk);
>> +
>> + /*
>> * We must release these locks before taking any timer's lock.
>> * There is a potential race with timer deletion here, as the
>> * siglock now protects our private firing list. We have set
>
> I think I would feel more comfortable if this was done at the very
> beginning of that function, possibly even with:
>
>> +static void __run_posix_cpu_timers(struct task_struct *tsk)
>> +{
>> + struct posix_cputimers *pct = &tsk->posix_cputimers;
>> +
>> + if (!test_and_set_bit(CPUTIMERS_WORK_SCHEDULED, &pct->flags))
>> + task_work_add(tsk, &pct->task_work, true);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void posix_cpu_timers_enable_work(struct task_struct *tsk)
>> +{
>> + clear_bit(CPUTIMERS_WORK_SCHEDULED, &tsk->posix_cputimers.flags);
> /*
> * Ensure we observe everything before a failing test_and_set()
> * in __run_posix_cpu_timers().
> */
> smp_mb__after_atomic();
>> +}
>
> Such that when another timer interrupt happens while we run this, we're
> guaranteed to either see it, or get re-queued and thus re-run the
> function.
Makes sense.
Thanks,
tglx
