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

[Frederic Weisbecker]

Le Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 10:26:34AM +0100, Anna-Maria Behnsen a écrit :
> When no timer is queued into an empty timer base, the next_expiry will not
> be updated. It was originally calculated as
> 
>   base->clk + NEXT_TIMER_MAX_DELTA
> 
> When the timer base stays empty long enough (> NEXT_TIMER_MAX_DELTA), the
> next_expiry value of the empty base suggests that there is a timer pending
> soon. This might be more a kind of a theoretical problem, but the fix
> doesn't hurt.

This solves a real issue. I suggest removing the last sentence and add instead:

If the CPU sleeps in idle for a bit more than NEXT_TIMER_MAX_DELTA
(~12 days in HZ=1000) and then an interrupt fires, upon going back to idle
get_next_timer_interrupt() will still return KTIME_MAX but incorrectly set
is_idle to false. Therefore the CPU will keep the tick stopped and go back to
sleep though further remote enqueue of timers to this CPU will fail to send an IPI.
As a result the timer will remain ignored.

Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@xxxxxxxxxx>