[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111220190908.GC25689@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 21:09:08 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: Amit Shah <amit.shah@...hat.com>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] virtio_net: fix refill related races
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 01:05:11PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:54:06 +0200, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 09:25:07AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > Orthogonally, the refill-stop code is still buggy, as you noted.
> >
> > Sorry I don't understand how it's still buggy.
>
> Both places where we call:
>
> cancel_delayed_work_sync(&vi->refill);
>
> Do not actually guarantee that vi->refill isn't running, because it
> can requeue itself. A 'bool no_more_refill' field seems like the
> simplest fix for this, but I don't think it's sufficient.
>
> Tejun, is this correct? What's the correct way to synchronously stop a
> delayed_work which can "schedule_delayed_work(&vi->refill, HZ/2);" on
> itself?
>
> Thanks,
> Rusty.
Another question, wanted to make sure:
virtnet_poll does schedule_delayed_work(&vi->refill, 0);
separately refill work itself also does
schedule_delayed_work(&vi->refill, HZ/2);
If two such events happen twice, on different CPUs, we are still guaranteed
the work will only run once, right?
--
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