Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 12:55:14 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com, mingo@elte.hu, ktkhai@parallels.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, tglx@linutronix.de, juri.lelli@gmail.com,
        pang.xunlei@linaro.org, wanpeng.li@linux.intel.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/14] hrtimer: Allow hrtimer::function() to free the
 timer
Message-ID: <20150608105514.GV18673@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20150605084836.364306429@infradead.org>
 <20150605085205.723058588@infradead.org>
 <20150607223317.GA5193@redhat.com>
 <20150608091417.GM19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150608091417.GM19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1644
Lines: 45

On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 11:14:17AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 12:33:17AM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Not sure I read this patch correctly, it doesn't apply to Linus's tree.
> 
> I was working on tip/master, there's a number of timer patches in there.
> 
> > And I simply can not understand the complication in hrtimer_active(),
> > please help!
> > 
> > On 06/05, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > +bool hrtimer_active(const struct hrtimer *timer)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct hrtimer_cpu_base *cpu_base;
> > > +	unsigned int seq;
> > > +	bool active;
> > > +
> > > +	do {
> > > +		active = false;
> > > +		cpu_base = READ_ONCE(timer->base->cpu_base);
> > > +		seq = raw_read_seqcount(&cpu_base->seq);
> > > +
> > > +		if (timer->state != HRTIMER_STATE_INACTIVE ||
> > > +		    cpu_base->running == timer)
> > > +			active = true;
> > 
> > Why we can't simply return true in this case?
> > 
> > Unless you lock this timer, hrtimer_active() is inherently racy anyway.
> > Granted, it must not wrongly return False if the timer is pending or
> > running.
> > 
> > But "false positive" does not differ from the case when (say) the
> > running timer->function() finishes right after hrtimer_active() returns
> > True.

OK I can't read; you asked why delay the return true inside that loop.

Yes we can as per your argument. I think I ended up being too paranoid
or something.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/