From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753109AbbJTAzk (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 19 Oct 2015 20:55:40 -0400
Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175]:37556 "EHLO
	mail-wi0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751589AbbJTAzi (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 19 Oct 2015 20:55:38 -0400
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 02:55:36 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        George Spelvin <linux@horizon.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] posix-cpu-timers: Merge running and checking_timer state
 in one field
Message-ID: <20151020005535.GB22807@lerouge>
References: <1445300334-25977-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <20151020004108.GB27292@linux-uzut.site>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151020004108.GB27292@linux-uzut.site>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:41:08PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 
> >- * @checking_timer:	true when a thread in the group is in the
> >- *			process of checking for thread group timers.
> >- *
> >+ * @state:		flags describing the current state of the cputimer.
> >+ *			CPUTIMER_STATE_RUNNING bit means the timers is elapsing.
> 
>                                                              s/timers/timer
> 
> >+ * 			CPUTIMER_STATE_CHECKING bit means that the cputimer has
> >+ *			expired and a thread in the group is checking the
> >+ *			callback list.
> 
> These comments might be better served when defining CPUTIMER_STATE_*

If it was defined as an emum I'd agree but here state is defined as an
int (whose size is more readable in a struct than enum) and it's not obvious
what kind of values it can take if we don't define them here.

> 
> [...]
> 
> >@@ -606,7 +606,7 @@ bool posix_cpu_timers_can_stop_tick(struct task_struct *tsk)
> >		return false;
> >
> >	/* Check if cputimer is running. This is accessed without locking. */
> >-	if (READ_ONCE(tsk->signal->cputimer.running))
> >+	if (READ_ONCE(tsk->signal->cputimer.state))
> >		return false;
> 
> Could we have cases, such as the above, where .state is set to CPUTIMER_STATE_CHECKING
> and therefore the check is not equivalent?

Nope we shouldn't. I added a WARN_ONCE somewhere to perform some related sanity
checks. I could add more if needed.

Thanks.

> Thanks,
> Davidlohr