[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070515220812.GB615@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 02:08:12 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
Cc: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Chinner <dgc@....com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Gautham Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>, 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 05/15, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>
> I've overheared somebody is talking about my favorite 2-nd bit!
> Probably I miss many points (your talk isn't the most clear),
> but I wonder if this bit couldn't be used otherwise: try_to_grab_
> sets the bit - others know cancel is pending, so don't disturb:
> e.g. insert_work doesn't queue (at least after works' cpu change,
> which seems to be the main problem here). Probably there is
> no reason to test this bit in all places - only in the most
> problematic; so, in insert_work maybe only after checking
> the cpu was changed. If this way is possible, we could avoid
> setting the VALID bit when not needed (no cancel pending). Maybe
> we could also think about some form of cooperation - e.g. clearing
> of this or other bit to ack the work was catched - of course
> this last thing could be too much, so not necessarily now.
We already discussed this... Surely, we can do this. I believe
this will complicate (and _imho_ uglify) the code too much.
May be I am wrong. Please provide a detailed description?
Oleg.
-
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