Received: from milmhbs1.lsil.com (147.145.21.209) by coscas01.lsi.com
 (172.21.36.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.393.1; Tue, 10 Nov 2009
 12:47:02 -0700
Received: from mail1.lsil.com (mail1.lsil.com [147.145.40.21])	by
 milmhbs1.lsil.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nAAJktkh015772	for
 <andy.sharp@lsi.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:46:57 -0800
Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys009amx201.postini.com [74.125.149.41])	by
 mail1.lsil.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id nAAJkbKL005354	for
 <andy.sharp@lsi.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:46:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from source ([78.24.191.182]) by na3sys009amx201.postini.com
 ([74.125.148.14]) with SMTP;	Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:46:54 PST
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]:60868 "EHLO
	eddie.linux-mips.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by ftp.linux-mips.org	with
 ESMTP id S1492194AbZKJTqP (ORCPT <rfc822;andy.sharp@lsi.com>);	Tue, 10 Nov
 2009 20:46:15 +0100
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:45:58
 +0100 (CET)
Received: from gateway16.websitewelcome.com ([70.85.130.5]:56944 "HELO
	gateway16.websitewelcome.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)	by ftp.linux-mips.org
 with SMTP id S1492183AbZKJTpw (ORCPT	<rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org>);
 Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:45:52 +0100
Received: (qmail 30195 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2009 20:00:02 -0000
Received: from gator750.hostgator.com (174.132.194.2)  by
 gateway16.websitewelcome.com with SMTP; 10 Nov 2009 20:00:02 -0000
Received: from 216-239-45-4.google.com ([216.239.45.4]:15776
 helo=epiktistes.mtv.corp.google.com)	by gator750.hostgator.com with esmtpa
 (Exim 4.69)	(envelope-from <kevink@paralogos.com>)	id 1N7weo-0000ph-NG; Tue,
 10 Nov 2009 13:45:38 -0600
From: "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@paralogos.com>
To: Mikael Starvik <mikael.starvik@axis.com>
CC: "linux-mips@linux-mips.org" <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>, Jesper Nilsson
	<Jesper.Nilsson@axis.com>
Sender: "linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org" <linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:45:46 -0700
Subject: Re: SMTC lookup in smtc_distribute_timer
Thread-Topic: SMTC lookup in smtc_distribute_timer
Thread-Index: AcpiPpMpWG4sOWOaT86KVb74jwYWDg==
Message-ID: <4AF9C2EA.3090205@paralogos.com>
References: <4BEA3FF3CAA35E408EA55C7BE2E61D0546A586E7EA@xmail3.se.axis.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BEA3FF3CAA35E408EA55C7BE2E61D0546A586E7EA@xmail3.se.axis.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: coscas01.lsi.com
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-scanned-by: MIMEDefang 2.39
errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
x-pstn-levels: (S:99.90000/99.90000 CV:99.9000 FC:95.5390 LC:95.5390
 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:97.0282 C:98.6951 )
x-pstn-settings: 3 (1.0000:1.0000) s cv gt3 gt2 gt1 r p m c 
x-pstn-addresses: from <kevink@paralogos.com> [22/1] 
x-pstn-neptune: 0/0/0.00/0
user-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)
x-antiabuse: Sender Address Domain - paralogos.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Your failure scenario looks plausible. Mea culpa.  However, I think that
a more elegant and slightly smaller (depending on just how good
the optimizer is) fix would be:

diff --git a/arch/mips/kernel/cevt-smtc.c b/arch/mips/kernel/cevt-smtc.c
index 98bd7de..b102e4f 100644
--- a/arch/mips/kernel/cevt-smtc.c
+++ b/arch/mips/kernel/cevt-smtc.c
@@ -173,11 +173,12 @@ void smtc_distribute_timer(int vpe)
        unsigned int mtflags;
        int cpu;
        struct clock_event_device *cd;
-       unsigned long nextstamp =3D 0L;
+       unsigned long nextstamp;
        unsigned long reference;
=20
=20
 repeat:
+       nextstamp =3D 0L;
        for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
            /*
             * Find virtual CPUs within the current VPE who have



I don't have access to SMTC-capable hardware just now, but
I guess the way to test this would be to have a test program
or kernel test stub program two events separated by the smallest
possible increment, so that the second will have passed by the
time interrupt services for the first.

          Regards,

          Kevin K.

Mikael Starvik wrote:
> Ok, my guess is something like this:
>
> 1. At the end of smtc_distribute_timer, nextstamp is valid and has alread=
y=20
> passed so we goto repeat.=20
> 2. Nothing updates nextstamp (only updated if the timeout is in the futur=
e=20
> And we just decided it is in the past)
> 3. At the end nextstamp still has the same value so it is still valid and
> in the past.
> 4. This repeats until read_c0_count has a value which causes nextstamp to
> be in the future.
>
> One possible patch that seams to solve it for me below. This is probably=
=20
> not the correct solution so I'll need help from the SMTC experts to revie=
w
> it and come up with the correct solution.
>
> Best Regards
> /Mikael
>
> Index: cevt-smtc.c
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> RCS file: /usr/local/cvs/linux/os/linux-2.6/arch/mips/kernel/cevt-smtc.c,=
v
> retrieving revision 1.2
> diff -u -r1.2 cevt-smtc.c
> --- cevt-smtc.c	2 Sep 2009 10:07:51 -0000	1.2
> +++ cevt-smtc.c	10 Nov 2009 11:40:31 -0000
> @@ -223,8 +223,10 @@
>  		write_c0_compare(nextstamp);
>  		ehb();
>  		if ((nextstamp - (unsigned long)read_c0_count())
> -			> (unsigned long)LONG_MAX)
> +			> (unsigned long)LONG_MAX) {
> +				nextstamp =3D 0L; =20
>  				goto repeat;
> +			}
>  	}
>  }
>
>
>  =20


