Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > We only care when del_timer() returns true. In that case, if the timer
> > > function still runs (possible for single-threaded wqs), it has already
> > > passed __queue_work().
> >
> > Why do you assume that?
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant the assumption that we only
care about a true return from del_timer().
> If del_timer() returns true, the timer was pending. This means it was
> started by work->func() (note that __run_timers() clears timer_pending()
> before calling timer->function). This in turn means that
> delayed_work_timer_fn() has already called __queue_work(dwork), otherwise
> work->func() has no chance to run.
But if del_timer() returns 0, then there may be a problem. We can't tell the
difference between the following two cases:
(1) The timer hadn't been started.
(2) The timer had been started, has expired and is no longer pending, but
another CPU is running its handler routine.
try_to_del_timer_sync() _does_, however, distinguish between these cases: the
first is the 0 return, the second is the -1 return, and the case where it
dequeued the timer is the 1 return.
BTW, can a timer handler be preempted? I assume not... But it can be delayed
by interrupt processing.
David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
