Re: [PATCH v9 12/32] timers: Fix nextevt calculation when no timers are pending

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 02:21:25PM +0100, Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote:
> Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > Le Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 12:53:03PM +0100, Anna-Maria Behnsen a écrit :
> >> 
> >> Frederic, what do you think?
> >
> > So it looks like is_idle must be fixed.
> >
> > As for the timer softirq, ->next_expiry is already unreliable because when
> > a timer is removed, ->next_expiry is not updated (even though that removed
> > timer might have been the earliest). So ->next_expiry can already carry a
> > "too early" value. The only constraint is that ->next_expiry can't be later
> > than the first timer.
> >
> > So I'd rather put a comment somewhere about the fact that wrapping is expected
> > to behave ok. But it's your call.
> 
> Ok. If both solutions are fine, I would like to take the solution with
> updating the next_expiry values for empty bases. It will make the
> compare of expiry values of global and local timer base easier in one of
> the patches later on.

Fine by me at least!

Thanks.

> Thanks,
> 
> 	Anna-Maria
>