[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221122173649.018971915@linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 18:45:10 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@...il.com>,
linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [patch V2 16/17] timers: Update the documentation to reflect on the
new timer_shutdown() API
From: "Steven Rostedt (Google)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
In order to make sure that a timer is not re-armed after it is stopped
before freeing, a new shutdown state is added to the timer code. The API
timer_shutdown_sync() and timer_shutdown() must be called before the
object that holds the timer can be freed.
Update the documentation to reflect this new workflow.
[ tglx: Updated to the new semantics and updated the zh_CN version ]
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221110064147.712934793@goodmis.org
---
Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst | 2 +-
Documentation/core-api/local_ops.rst | 2 +-
Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst | 5 +++++
Documentation/translations/zh_CN/core-api/local_ops.rst | 2 +-
4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst
@@ -1858,7 +1858,7 @@ unloaded. After a given module has been
one of its functions results in a segmentation fault. The module-unload
functions must therefore cancel any delayed calls to loadable-module
functions, for example, any outstanding mod_timer() must be dealt
-with via timer_delete_sync() or similar.
+with via timer_shutdown_sync() or similar.
Unfortunately, there is no way to cancel an RCU callback; once you
invoke call_rcu(), the callback function is eventually going to be
--- a/Documentation/core-api/local_ops.rst
+++ b/Documentation/core-api/local_ops.rst
@@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ Here is a sample module which implements
static void __exit test_exit(void)
{
- timer_delete_sync(&test_timer);
+ timer_shutdown_sync(&test_timer);
}
module_init(test_init);
--- a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst
+++ b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst
@@ -1007,6 +1007,11 @@ calling add_timer() at the end of their
Because this is a fairly common case which is prone to races, you should
use timer_delete_sync() (``include/linux/timer.h``) to handle this case.
+Before freeing a timer, timer_shutdown() or timer_shutdown_sync() should be
+called which will keep it from being rearmed. Any subsequent attempt to
+rearm the timer will be silently ignored by the core code.
+
+
Locking Speed
=============
--- a/Documentation/translations/zh_CN/core-api/local_ops.rst
+++ b/Documentation/translations/zh_CN/core-api/local_ops.rst
@@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ UP之间没有不同的行为,在你�
static void __exit test_exit(void)
{
- timer_delete_sync(&test_timer);
+ timer_shutdown_sync(&test_timer);
}
module_init(test_init);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists