From 06238eaacf8425ea3a5b72a5cc19410ba0ce824d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:13:10 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 035/518] hrtimer: Make remote enqueue decision less
 restrictive

The current decision whether a timer can be queued on a remote CPU checks
for timer->expiry <= remote_cpu_base.expires_next.

This is too restrictive because a timer with the same expiry time as an
existing timer will be enqueued on right-hand size of the existing timer
inside the rbtree, i.e. behind the first expiring timer.

So its safe to allow enqueuing timers with the same expiry time as the
first expiring timer on a remote CPU base.

Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
---
 kernel/time/hrtimer.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/time/hrtimer.c b/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
index c5e801b20646a..bbe130a80638b 100644
--- a/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
+++ b/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ hrtimer_check_target(struct hrtimer *timer, struct hrtimer_clock_base *new_base)
 	ktime_t expires;
 
 	expires = ktime_sub(hrtimer_get_expires(timer), new_base->offset);
-	return expires <= new_base->cpu_base->expires_next;
+	return expires < new_base->cpu_base->expires_next;
 }
 
 static inline
-- 
2.41.0

