From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.12.6-rt9 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 12:19:52 +0100 Message-ID: <52E24C58.2000205@linutronix.de> References: <20131223225017.GA8623@linutronix.de> <1387900067.5490.33.camel@marge.simpson.net> <20140117170052.GF5785@linutronix.de> <1390014929.5444.38.camel@marge.simpson.net> <20140120211736.0c97418a@gandalf.local.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Mike Galbraith , linux-rt-users , LKML , Thomas Gleixner , John Kacur To: Steven Rostedt Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140120211736.0c97418a@gandalf.local.home> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-rt-users.vger.kernel.org On 01/21/2014 03:17 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt > > diff --git a/kernel/timer.c b/kernel/timer.c > index 46467be..8212c10 100644 > --- a/kernel/timer.c > +++ b/kernel/timer.c > @@ -1464,13 +1464,11 @@ void run_local_timers(void) > raise_softirq(TIMER_SOFTIRQ); > return; > } > - if (!base->active_timers) > - goto out; > > /* Check whether the next pending timer has expired */ > if (time_before_eq(base->next_timer, jiffies)) > raise_softirq(TIMER_SOFTIRQ); Hmmm. If active_timers is 0 and "time_before_eq(base->next_timer, jiffies))" is true than that timer should have been initialized with init_timer_deferrable() or we have a serious bug here where active_timers isn't properly synchronized anymore. Now. If there is really just a deferrable timer that expired and nothing else then this would explain it. > -out: > + > rt_spin_unlock_after_trylock_in_irq(&base->lock); > > } Sebastian