[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1433777745.1495.41.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 17:35:45 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: umgwanakikbuti@...il.com, mingo@...e.hu, ktkhai@...allels.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, tglx@...utronix.de, juri.lelli@...il.com,
pang.xunlei@...aro.org, wanpeng.li@...ux.intel.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] hrtimer: HRTIMER_STATE_ fixes
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.
--
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