[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150608154918.GA23743@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 17:49:18 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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 08/14] hrtimer: Allow hrtimer::function() to free the
timer
On 06/08, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 04:27:49PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Most probably I missed something... I'll try to think more, but perhaps
> > you see a hole immediately?
>
> This is something I proposed earlier; Kirill said:
>
> lkml.kernel.org/r/2134411433408823@...8j.yandex.ru
>
> Which I read like the below, imagine our timer expires periodically and
> rearms itself:
>
> acquire
> cpu_base->running = timer;
> wmb
> timer->state = INACTIVE;
> release
> [R] timer->state (== INACTIVE)
> fn()
> acquire
> timer->state = ACTIVE
> wmb
> cpu_base->running = NULL
> release
>
> [R] cpu_base->running (== NULL)
>
> acquire
> cpu_base->running = timer;
> wmb
> timer->state = INACTIVE;
> release
>
> [R] timer->state (== INACTIVE)
Damn yes. Thanks Kirill and Peter.
And I swear, I swear I was thinking about this race yesterday but
forgot this problem today ;)
Yes it seems that we can't avoid the seq counter. But perhaps we
can increment/check it once in run_hrtimer/hrtimer_inactive ...
I'll try to think.
Thanks!
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