[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091217223300.GB3491@ami.dom.local>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:33:00 +0100
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
Cc: Laurent Chavey <chavey@...gle.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
Mikhail Markine <markine@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bonding-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Petri Gynther <pgynther@...gle.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [Bonding-devel] [PATCH] bonding: cancel_delayed_work() ->
cancel_delayed_work_sync()
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:58:23PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 01:40:29PM -0800, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> > A less evil alternative would be to punt and reschedule the work
> > if the rtnl_trylock failed, e.g.,
> >
> > if (bond_miimon_inspect(bond)) {
> > read_unlock(&bond->lock);
> > if (!rtnl_trylock()) {
> > queue_work(...);
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > read_lock(&bond->lock);
> >
> > bond_miimon_commit(bond);
> > [...]
> >
> > I'm not sure what the usual contention level on rtnl is (and,
> > therefore, how often this will punt for the normal case that's not the
> > race we're trying to avoid here).
>
> Even if there is not much contention there is usually a lot of work
> inside, so this looks most reasonable to me.
On the other hand, there could be considered other alternatives yet,
like separating these works with rtnl_lock, and killing them reliably
from some better place (after dev close).
Jarek P.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists