From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
To: george@mvista.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rc4-mm2 2/2] posix-timers: use try_to_del_timer_sync()
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 13:38:07 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4292F5FF.1A92086C@tv-sign.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 42926F83.9050608@mvista.com
George Anzinger wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > This patch removes timer_active/set_timer_inactive which plays with
> > timer_list's internals in favour of using try_to_del_timer_sync(),
> > which was introduced in the previous patch.
>
> Is there a particular reason for this, like it does not work, for example, or
> are you just trying to clean up code?
It's a cleanup, I think that current code is correct.
> If this currently works, please leave it alone.
Ok.
> We also note that this code is the subject of a patch to the RT patch to cover
> the same issue when softirqs are run from threads and therefor allow
> posix_timer_fn to be preempted. (That fix being mainly to expand usage from
> just SMP to SMP || SOFTIRQ_PREEMPT.)
I guess you are talking about this patch:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=111566867218576
> Also, I think that del_timer_sync and friends need to be turned on if soft_irq
> is preemptable.
I agree completely.
> + * For RT the timer call backs are preemptable. This means that folks
> + * trying to delete timers may run into timers that are "active" for
> + * long times. To help out with this we provide a wake up function to
> + * wake up a caller who wants waking when a timer clears the call back.
> + * This is the same sort of thing that the del_timer_sync does, but we
> + * need (in the HRT case) to cover two lists and not just the one.
> + */
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_SOFTIRQS
> +#include <linux/wait.h>
> +static DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(timer_wake_queue);
> +#define wake_timer_waiters() wake_up(&timer_wake_queue)
> +#define wait_for_timer(timer) wait_event(timer_wake_queue, !timer_active(timer))
I'm not an expert at all, so I may be wrong, but I don't think
it's a good idea.
I think it is bad if __run_timers() could be preempted while
->running_timer != NULL. This will interact badly with __mod_timer,
del_timer_sync. I think that __run_timers() should do:
set_running_timer(base, timer);
preempt_disable();
spin_unlock_irq(&base->lock);
timer->function();
set_running_timer(base, NULL);
preempt_enable();
spin_lock_irq(&base->lock);
What do you think?
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-05-24 9:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-05-22 14:57 [PATCH rc4-mm2 2/2] posix-timers: use try_to_del_timer_sync() Oleg Nesterov
2005-05-24 0:04 ` George Anzinger
2005-05-24 0:29 ` Andrew Morton
2005-05-24 0:52 ` George Anzinger
2005-05-24 9:38 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2005-05-24 15:27 ` George Anzinger
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-05-26 16:16 George Anzinger
2005-05-26 17:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4292F5FF.1A92086C@tv-sign.ru \
--to=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=george@mvista.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox