From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/22] kthread: Allow to cancel kthread work Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 17:58:23 -0500 Message-ID: <20151123225823.GI19072@mtj.duckdns.org> References: <1447853127-3461-1-git-send-email-pmladek@suse.com> <1447853127-3461-10-git-send-email-pmladek@suse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1447853127-3461-10-git-send-email-pmladek-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Petr Mladek Cc: Andrew Morton , Oleg Nesterov , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt , "Paul E. McKenney" , Josh Triplett , Thomas Gleixner , Linus Torvalds , Jiri Kosina , Borislav Petkov , Michal Hocko , linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, Vlastimil Babka , linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 02:25:14PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > +static int > +try_to_cancel_kthread_work(struct kthread_work *work, > + spinlock_t *lock, > + unsigned long *flags) > +{ > + int ret = 0; > + > + if (work->timer) { > + /* Try to cancel the timer if pending. */ > + if (del_timer(work->timer)) { > + ret = 1; > + goto out; > + } > + > + /* Are we racing with the timer callback? */ > + if (timer_active(work->timer)) { > + /* Bad luck, need to avoid a deadlock. */ > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, *flags); > + del_timer_sync(work->timer); > + ret = -EAGAIN; > + goto out; > + } As the timer side is already kinda trylocking anyway, can't the cancel path be made simpler? Sth like lock(worker); work->canceling = true; del_timer_sync(work->timer); unlock(worker); And the timer can do (ignoring the multiple worker support, do we even need that?) while (!trylock(worker)) { if (work->canceling) return; cpu_relax(); } queue; unlock(worker); Thanks. -- tejun