Re: [PATCH V2] hrtimer: Check running timer state

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Fri, Nov 14 2025 at 19:42, Enlin Mu wrote:
> When the running timer is not NULL, print debugging information.

What for?

> The test code is roughly as follows:
>
> static struct hrtimer serial_timer;
> enum hrtimer_restart serial_timer_handler(struct hrtimer * timer)
> {
> 	local_irq_disable();

What is this for?

> 	......
> 	do_someting();
> 	copy_data_with_dma();
> 	......
> 	hrtimer_forward_now(*serial_timer, ns_to_ktime(1000*2000));
> 	local_irq_enable();

And this?

> 	return HRTIMER_RESTART;
> }
>
> static int serial_start(struct uart_port *port)
> {
> 	......
> 	......
> 	hrtime_init(&serial_timer, CLOCK_MONOTONIC, HRTIMER_MODE_REL);

That function does not exist.

> 	ktime = no_to_ktime(1000*2000);
> 	serial_timer.function = serial_timer_handler;
> 	hrtimer_start(&serial_timer, ktime, HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
> 	......
> 	return 0;
> }
>
> static void serial_shutdown(struct uart_port *port)
> {
> 	......
> 	hrtimer_cancle(&serial_timer);
> 	......
> 	serial_release_dma(port);
> 	......
> }

> The cpu6 canceled serial_timer and released dma,but the
> serial_timer still ran many times on CPU7 until a panic occurred.
> The reason for the panic is that serial_timer accessed the
> released dma,But the serial_timer had been canceled for
> some time now on cpu6.

You still fail to explain how the timer can still run after being
canceled.

> The cpu6 can successfully cancel the serial_timer because the
> running timer has changed and it is another timer(such as
> hrtimer_usb).

After that the timer _cannot_ be running anymore unless some other code
re-arms it afterwards.

> When the serial_timer is enable to interrupt, the next hrtimer
> (such as hrtimer_usb) on cpu7 preempts the return of ther serial_timer,
> causing a change in the running timer.

Then fix your timer callback. The callback is invoked in hard interrupt
context and the callback enables interrupts, which is a NONO. You
clearly never ran your code with lockdep enabled. It would have told you
so.

> Signed-off-by: Enlin Mu <enlin.mu@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Enlin Mu <enlin.mu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Enlin Mu <enlin.mu@xxxxxxxxx>

Interesting Signed-off-by chain. Seems you're co-developing this patch
with your Alter ego.

Thanks,

        tglx