Re: [PATCH 0/6] Fix for leapsecond caused hrtimer/futex issue (updated)

[John Stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>]

On 07/12/2012 03:43 PM, Jiri Bohac wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 03:53:59PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
>> On 07/10/2012 03:43 PM, John Stultz wrote:
>>> Over the weekend, Thomas got a chance to review the leap second fix
>>> in more detail and had a few additional changes he wanted to make
>>> to improve performance as well as style.
>>>
>>> So this iteration includes his modifications.
>>>
>>> Once merged, I'll be working to get the backports finished as quickly
>>> as I can and sent to -stable.
> looking at the proposed 2.6.32.y stable patch at:
> http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/jstultz/linux.git;a=commitdiff;h=18d208632bf17aed56c581b882868b2be44be71e;hp=6d224606bb8eec78027522d6dd5abfea8108c41a
> Is this the final version you are about to send to -stable?
No, this isn't what I'm sending to -stable.  That was my backport that 
was done was prior to merging Thomas' modifications from over the 
weekend. Having, so far, done this backporting 3 times or so,  I figured 
I'd just wait until something got committed upstream before trying to 
backport it again. :)


> In 2.6.32 timekeeping_leap_insert() is not called from the timer
> interrupt, but from the leap_timer hrtimer.
>
> I think the new clock_was_set_timer will thus not be called by
> irq_exit() because TIMER_SOFTIRQ has not been raised. Unless
> TIMER_SOFTIRQ is raised, clock_was_set() will not be called until
> the next periodic timer interrupt, correct?
>
> Wouldn't the original schedule_work() approach work better for
> 2.6.32?
>
> Or do you plan backporting the most recent version to 2.6.32?

I'll be backporting & testing the most recent version once it is 
committed upstream.

thanks
-john