On Wed, 21 Aug 2019, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2019-08-21 10:24:07 [+0100], Julien Grall wrote:
> > The update to timer->base is protected by the base->cpu_base->lock().
> > However, hrtimer_grab_expirty_lock() does not access it with the lock.
> >
> > So it would theorically be possible to have timer->base changed under
> > our feet. We need to prevent the compiler to refetch timer->base so the
> > check and the access is performed on the same base.
>
> It is not a problem if the timer's bases changes. We get here because we
> want to help the timer to complete its callback.
> The base can only change if the timer gets re-armed on another CPU which
> means is completed callback. In every case we can cancel the timer on
> the next iteration.
It _IS_ a problem when the base changes and the compiler reloads
CPU0 CPU1
base = timer->base;
lock(base->....);
switch base
reload
base = timer->base;
unlock(base->....);
See?
