Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S275118AbTHAGYP (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Aug 2003 02:24:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S275119AbTHAGYO (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Aug 2003 02:24:14 -0400 Received: from mx1.elte.hu ([157.181.1.137]:29117 "EHLO mx1.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S275118AbTHAGYL (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Aug 2003 02:24:11 -0400 Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 08:23:26 +0200 (CEST) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: Ingo Molnar To: linas@austin.ibm.com Cc: Andrew Morton , Subject: Re: PATCH: Race in 2.6.0-test2 timer code In-Reply-To: <20030731175605.A26460@forte.austin.ibm.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1128 Lines: 28 On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 linas@austin.ibm.com wrote: > Well, I'm confused by this a bit too, now. I saw this bug in 2.4 and I > thought that Andrea was implying that it couldn't happen in 2.6. He > seemed to be saying that the del_timer_sync() + add_timer() race can > happen only in 2.4, where add_timer() is running on the 'wrong' cpu > bacuase it got there through the evil run_all_timers()/TIMER_BH. Since > there's no run_all_timers() in 2.6, he seemed to imply that the race > 'couldn't happen'. Is he right? it is correct, but it was me convincing Andrea about this, not the other way around :-) Pls. re-read the email thread. My point still stands: >> (in any case, i still think it would be safer to 'upgrade' the >> add_timer() interface to be SMP-safe and to allow double-adds - but not >> for any bug reason anymore.) this should also make backporting easier. Ingo - 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/