From: Liang Hao <haohlliang@gmail.com>
To: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
Clark Williams <clrkwllms@kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev, Liang Hao <haohlliang@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3] docs: timers: hrtimers: clarify expiry modes and ktimersd on PREEMPT_RT
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 22:57:46 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260813145746.26612-1-haohlliang@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260812145440.23528-1-haohlliang@gmail.com>
Documentation/timers/hrtimers.rst did not cover the PREEMPT_RT
expiry-mode semantics. On a PREEMPT_RT kernel a timer that is not
explicitly marked HRTIMER_MODE_HARD is forced into softirq expiry and
its callback runs on the per-CPU ktimers/%u thread at the lowest
SCHED_FIFO priority (sched_set_fifo_low), regardless of the priority of
the task that armed it -- a SCHED_FIFO task running at priority 99 that
starts an unmarked timer still expires on ktimers/%u (lowest SCHED_FIFO
priority), not at priority 99.
Add an "Expiry modes and PREEMPT_RT" section that, rather than
duplicating the default-context description in
Documentation/core-api/real-time/differences.rst (Timers),
cross-references it and focuses on what that document does not spell
out:
- the callback does not inherit the arming task's priority, and
priority inheritance on PREEMPT_RT is used for the cancel handshake,
not the arming path (the "Spin until ready" section of the same
document);
- the sleeper exception: hrtimer_setup_sleeper_on_stack() marks
RT/DL-armed timers HRTIMER_MODE_HARD, so their wakeups do not go
through ktimers/%u.
Documentation only; no code or behaviour change.
Signed-off-by: Liang Hao <haohlliang@gmail.com>
---
v2 -> v3:
- use hrtimer_setup_sleeper_on_stack(); there is no hrtimer_setup_sleeper()
Documentation/timers/hrtimers.rst | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/timers/hrtimers.rst b/Documentation/timers/hrtimers.rst
index f88ff8bae89c..b81785e0310e 100644
--- a/Documentation/timers/hrtimers.rst
+++ b/Documentation/timers/hrtimers.rst
@@ -171,3 +171,31 @@ hrtimers-based high-resolution clock implementation, so the hrtimers
code got a healthy amount of testing and use in practice.
Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar
+
+
+Expiry modes and PREEMPT_RT
+---------------------------
+
+The default expiry context on PREEMPT_RT and the role of the ktimersd
+thread are documented in :doc:`/core-api/real-time/differences`
+(Timers). Those details are not repeated here.
+
+The per-CPU ``ktimers/%u`` thread (referred to as ktimersd in that
+document) runs at the lowest ``SCHED_FIFO`` priority via
+``sched_set_fifo_low()``. That priority is fixed: the callback does
+not inherit the priority of the task that armed the timer. A
+``SCHED_FIFO`` task running at priority 99 that starts an unmarked
+timer still expires on ``ktimers/%u`` (lowest ``SCHED_FIFO`` priority),
+not at priority 99.
+Priority inheritance on PREEMPT_RT is used for the cancel handshake,
+not for the arming path; see the "Spin until ready" section of the same
+document.
+
+``hrtimer_setup_sleeper_on_stack()`` (used by ``clock_nanosleep()`` and similar)
+is an exception: when armed by an RT or DEADLINE task it is marked
+``HRTIMER_MODE_HARD``, so the wakeup runs in hardirq context and does
+not go through ``ktimers/%u``.
+
+If callback work must run at the owning task's RT priority, either
+mark the timer ``HRTIMER_MODE_HARD`` (and keep the callback
+hardirq-safe) or wake a dedicated kthread from the callback.
--
2.50.1 (Apple Git-155)
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-13 14:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-07 16:19 [PATCH] docs: timers: hrtimers: clarify expiry modes and ktimersd on PREEMPT_RT Liang Hao
2026-08-12 14:54 ` [PATCH v2] " Liang Hao
2026-08-13 14:57 ` Liang Hao [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260813145746.26612-1-haohlliang@gmail.com \
--to=haohlliang@gmail.com \
--cc=anna-maria@linutronix.de \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=clrkwllms@kernel.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=tglx@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox