Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 8 Jun 2015 17:56:28 +0200 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/3] hrtimer: HRTIMER_STATE_ fixes |
| |
On 06/08, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, 2015-06-08 at 17:10 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 06/08, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > > I tend to agree, but I think its a pre-existing problem, not one > > > > introduced by my proposed patch. > > > > > > Something like this would fix that I think. It fully preserves > > > timer->state over hrtimer_start_range_ns(). > > > > Yes, but I think we can do a bit better. > > > > Only for initial review, I need to re-check this... > > I'm having a wee bit of bother spotting how you version is 'better'. > > > And. I think that after you remove STATE_CALLBACK we can even kill > > timer->state altogether, but this is another story. > > Ah, yes, we could introduce timerqueue_is_queued() which uses > RB_EMPTY_NODE(). Obviating the need for hrtimer::state entirely.
Yes exactly.
And to me 2/3 looks like a cleanup in any case, __remove_hrtimer() should do nothing with other bits. Yes,
timer->state |= HRTIMER_STATE_CALLBACK; __remove_hrtimer(timer, base, true, 0);
in __run_hrtimer() looks worse than __remove_hrtimer(CALLBACK), but you are going to kill STATE_CALLBACK. And this should even simplify your patch a little bit.
But I agree, this is minor and subjective.
Oleg.
|  |