lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 08/14] hrtimer: Allow hrtimer::function() to free the timer
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 11:14:17AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 12:33:17AM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Not sure I read this patch correctly, it doesn't apply to Linus's tree.
>
> I was working on tip/master, there's a number of timer patches in there.
>
> > And I simply can not understand the complication in hrtimer_active(),
> > please help!
> >
> > On 06/05, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > +bool hrtimer_active(const struct hrtimer *timer)
> > > +{
> > > + struct hrtimer_cpu_base *cpu_base;
> > > + unsigned int seq;
> > > + bool active;
> > > +
> > > + do {
> > > + active = false;
> > > + cpu_base = READ_ONCE(timer->base->cpu_base);
> > > + seq = raw_read_seqcount(&cpu_base->seq);
> > > +
> > > + if (timer->state != HRTIMER_STATE_INACTIVE ||
> > > + cpu_base->running == timer)
> > > + active = true;
> >
> > Why we can't simply return true in this case?
> >
> > Unless you lock this timer, hrtimer_active() is inherently racy anyway.
> > Granted, it must not wrongly return False if the timer is pending or
> > running.
> >
> > But "false positive" does not differ from the case when (say) the
> > running timer->function() finishes right after hrtimer_active() returns
> > True.

OK I can't read; you asked why delay the return true inside that loop.

Yes we can as per your argument. I think I ended up being too paranoid
or something.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-06-08 13:21    [W:0.134 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site