[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110203164549.GA12802@core.coreip.homeip.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:45:49 -0800
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Faisal Latif <faisal.latif@...el.com>,
Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>,
Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
Alessandro Rubini <rubini@...vis.unipv.it>,
Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@...e.com>,
Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] workqueue: Remove now superfluous
cancel_delayed_work() calls
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 05:19:06PM +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Peter.
>
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 03:09:44PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Since queue_delayed_work() can now deal with existing timers, we don't
> > need to explicitly call cancel_delayed_work() anymore.
>
> This is nice but there's small complication with the way
> queue_delayed_work() behaves. If a delayed work item is already
> pending, another queue_delayed_work() doesn't modify the delay whether
> the new delay is longer or shorter than the current one. The previous
> patch doesn't really change the behavior as the whole thing is gated
> with WORK_STRUCT_PENDING_BIT.
>
> So, cancel_delayed_work() followed by queue_delayed_work() schedules
> the work to be executed at the specified time regardless of the
> current pending state while queue_delayed_work() takes effect iff
> currently the work item is not pending.
>
> The current behavior is weird and it often is easier to use explicit
> timer + work item if the timer needs to be modified, but it has been
> that way from the beginning so I don't think changing it would be a
> good idea. We can introduce a new interface (mod_delayed_work()
> maybe) for this tho.
>
I agree. If we were to change queue_delayed_work() we'd have to verify
that all users that do not presently use cancel_delayed_work() in
reschedule would be OK with the new behavior.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
--
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