[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070503181513.0b0aa4fb.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 18:15:13 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc: David Chinner <dgc@....com>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Gautham Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make cancel_rearming_delayed_work() reliable
On Fri, 4 May 2007 00:42:26 +0400
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru> wrote:
> Thanks to Jarek Poplawski for the ideas and for spotting the bug in the
> initial draft patch.
>
> cancel_rearming_delayed_work() currently has many limitations, because it
> requires that dwork always re-arms itself via queue_delayed_work(). So it
> hangs forever if dwork doesn't do this, or cancel_rearming_delayed_work/
> cancel_delayed_work was already called. It uses flush_workqueue() in a loop,
> so it can't be used if workqueue was freezed, and it is potentially live-
> lockable on busy system if delay is small.
>
> With this patch cancel_rearming_delayed_work() doesn't make any assumptions
> about dwork, it can re-arm itself via queue_delayed_work(), or queue_work(),
> or do nothing.
>
> As a "side effect", cancel_work_sync() was changed to handle re-arming works
> as well.
>
> Disadvantages:
>
> - this patch adds wmb() to insert_work().
>
> - slowdowns the fast path (when del_timer() succeeds on entry) of
> cancel_rearming_delayed_work(), because wait_on_work() is called
> unconditionally. In that case, compared to the old version, we are
> doing "unneeded" lock/unlock for each online CPU.
>
> On the other hand, this means we don't need to use cancel_work_sync()
> after cancel_rearming_delayed_work().
>
> - complicates the code (.text grows by 130 bytes).
>
hm, this is getting complex.
> + while (!try_to_grab_pending(work))
> + ;
The patch adds a couple of spinloops. Normally we put a cpu_relax() into
such loops. It can make a very large difference under some circumstances.
> + while (!del_timer(&dwork->timer) &&
> + !try_to_grab_pending(&dwork->work))
> + ;
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists