From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
To: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v3] hrtimer: Use hard expiry when updating timers on the same base
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2026 16:34:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260910143442.2018-1-parri.andrea@gmail.com> (raw)
Rearming a queued timer with nonzero slack can leave the timerqueue out
of order. remove_and_enqueue_same_base() checks the new soft expiry
against its neighbours' hard expiries, then stores the new hard expiry
in the node without requeueing it.
For example, with A at 10 and B at 20, rearming A at 11 with slack 30
passes the neighbour check but leaves A's hard expiry of 41 before B's
20. The same function also caches the soft expiry in base->expires_next
when updating or inserting the first timer, giving next-event selection
an earlier deadline than the queue head's hard expiry.
Set the timer expiry before handling the queue. Use its stored hard
expiry for the in-place ordering check and both updates to
base->expires_next.
The early update is safe because remove_and_enqueue_same_base() runs
with base->cpu_base->lock held. The lock keeps the queue stable while
hrtimer_can_update_in_place() checks the new expiry against both
neighbours. If the check fails, timerqueue_linked_del() removes the node
without comparing expiry values before it is reinserted.
Fixes: eddffab8282e3 ("hrtimer: Keep track of first expiring timer per clock base")
Fixes: 343f2f4dc5425 ("hrtimer: Try to modify timers in place")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Assisted-by: LLM
Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
---
Changes in v3:
- Explain why updating the expiry before handling the queue is safe, as
requested by Thomas Gleixner.
Changes in v2:
- Set the timer expiry before handling the queue and use the resulting hard
expiry for the in-place update check, as suggested by Peter Zijlstra.
v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260909102749.7677-1-parri.andrea@gmail.com/
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260907211134.3854-1-parri.andrea@gmail.com/
kernel/time/hrtimer.c | 15 +++++++++++----
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/time/hrtimer.c b/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
index 530d61257b9a0..cbf1693c86b38 100644
--- a/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
+++ b/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
@@ -1263,13 +1263,23 @@ remove_and_enqueue_same_base(struct hrtimer *timer, struct hrtimer_clock_base *b
{
bool was_first = false;
+ /*
+ * Updating the sort key while @timer is queued can temporarily
+ * make the tree inconsistent. This is safe under cpu_base->lock:
+ * no other queue operation can observe that state.
+ * hrtimer_can_update_in_place() either confirms that the new expiry
+ * fits between the neighbours or timerqueue_linked_del() removes the
+ * timer without consulting the expiry.
+ */
+ hrtimer_set_expires_range_ns(timer, expires, delta_ns);
+ expires = hrtimer_get_expires(timer);
+
/* Remove it from the timer queue if active */
if (timer->is_queued) {
was_first = !timerqueue_linked_prev(&timer->node);
/* Try to update in place to avoid the de/enqueue dance */
if (hrtimer_can_update_in_place(timer, base, expires)) {
- hrtimer_set_expires_range_ns(timer, expires, delta_ns);
trace_hrtimer_start(timer, mode, true);
if (was_first)
base->expires_next = expires;
@@ -1280,9 +1290,6 @@ remove_and_enqueue_same_base(struct hrtimer *timer, struct hrtimer_clock_base *b
timerqueue_linked_del(&base->active, &timer->node);
}
- /* Set the new expiry time */
- hrtimer_set_expires_range_ns(timer, expires, delta_ns);
-
debug_activate(timer, mode, timer->is_queued);
base->cpu_base->active_bases |= 1 << base->index;
--
2.53.0
next reply other threads:[~2026-09-10 14:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-10 14:34 Andrea Parri [this message]
2026-09-11 8:20 ` [tip: timers/urgent] " tip-bot2 for Andrea Parri
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260910143442.2018-1-parri.andrea@gmail.com \
--to=parri.andrea@gmail.com \
--cc=anna-maria@linutronix.de \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®