[PATCH] timer: Preserve higher bits of expiration on index calculation

[Frederic Weisbecker]

 On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 09:29:24AM +0200, Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote:
> The bucket expiry time is the effective expriy time of timers and is
> greater than or equal to the requested timer expiry time. This is due
> to the guarantee that timers never expire early and the reduced expiry
> granularity in the secondary wheel levels.
> 
> When a timer is enqueued, trigger_dyntick_cpu() checks whether the
> timer is the new first timer. This check compares next_expiry with
> the requested timer expiry value and not with the effective expiry
> value of the bucket into which the timer was queued.
> 
> Storing the requested timer expiry value in base->next_expiry can lead
> to base->clk going backwards if the requested timer expiry value is
> smaller than base->clk. Commit 30c66fc30ee7 ("timer: Prevent base->clk
> from moving backward") worked around this by preventing the store when
> timer->expiry is before base->clk, but did not fix the underlying
> problem.
> 
> Use the expiry value of the bucket into which the timer is queued to
> do the new first timer check. This fixes the base->clk going backward
> problem.
> 
> The workaround of commit 30c66fc30ee7 ("timer: Prevent base->clk from
> moving backward") in trigger_dyntick_cpu() is not longer necessary as the
> timers bucket expiry is guaranteed to be greater than or equal base->clk.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Actually I triggered the nasty warning in forward_timer_base()
with base->next_expiry < base->clk.

You'll need to first apply the following before your patch: