Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/8] entry,hrtimer: Push reprogramming timers into the interrupt return path

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Sat, Sep 20, 2025 at 11:29:43AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18 2025 at 09:52, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Currently hrtimer_interrupt() runs expired timers, which can re-arm
> > themselves, after which it computes the next expiration time and
> > re-programs the hardware.
> >
> > However, things like HRTICK, a highres timer driving preemption,
> > cannot re-arm itself at the point of running, since the next task has
> > not been determined yet. The schedule() in the interrupt return path
> > will switch to the next task, which then causes a new hrtimer to be
> > programmed.
> >
> > This then results in reprogramming the hardware at least twice, once
> > after running the timers, and once upon selecting the new task.
> >
> > Notably, *both* events happen in the interrupt.
> >
> > By pushing the hrtimer reprogram all the way into the interrupt return
> > path, it runs after schedule() and this double reprogram can be
> > avoided.
> >
> > XXX: 0-day is unhappy with this patch -- it is reporting lockups that
> > very much look like a timer goes missing. Am unable to reproduce.
> > Notable: the lockup goes away when the workloads are ran without perf
> > monitors.
> 
> After staring at it for a while, I have two observations.
> 
> 1) In the 0-day report the lockup detector triggers on a spinlock
>    contention in futex_wait_setup()
> 
>    I'm not really seeing how that's related to a missing timer.
> 
>    Without knowing what the other CPUs are doing and what holds the
>    lock, it's pretty much impossible to tell what the hell is going on.
> 
>    So that might need a back trace triggered on all CPUs and perhaps
>    some debug output in the backtrace about the hrtimer state.
> 
>    On the CPU where the lockup is detected, the timer is working.

Fair enough; I was thinking it got stuck on a missing timeout, but
indeed, that needs verifying.

> 2) I came up with the following scenario, which is broken with this
>    delayed rearm.
> 
>    Assume this happens on the timekeeping CPU.
> 
>       hrtimer_interrupt()
>         expire_timers();
>         set(TIF_REARM);
> 
>       exit_to_user_mode_prepare()
>         handle_tif_muck()
>           ...
>           to = jiffies + 2;
>           while (!cond() && time_before(jiffies, to))
>           	relax();
> 
>      If cond() does not become true for whatever reason, then this won't
>      make progress ever because the tick hrtimer which increments
>      jiffies is not happening.
> 
>      It can also be a wait on a remote CPU preventing progress
>      indirectly or a subtle dependency on a timer (timer list or
>      hrtimer) to expire.
> 
>   I have no idea whether that's related to the reported 0-day fallout,
>   but it definitely is a real problem lurking in the dark.

Argh... that exit_to_user_mode_loop() thing enables IRQs. Yes, buggered
something mighty.

Let me haz a poke.