Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261805AbVCOTIf (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:08:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261802AbVCOTFU (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:05:20 -0500 Received: from 209-204-138-32.dsl.static.sonic.net ([209.204.138.32]:55564 "EHLO graphe.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261787AbVCOTCz (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:02:55 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:02:53 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: christoph@server.graphe.net To: Oleg Nesterov cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Shai Fultheim , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] del_timer_sync: proof of concept In-Reply-To: <42373A4C.D9B90D6@tv-sign.ru> Message-ID: References: <4231E959.141F7D85@tv-sign.ru> <4237192B.7E8AA85A@tv-sign.ru> <42373A4C.D9B90D6@tv-sign.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: -5.8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 932 Lines: 23 On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > > However, this also means that __run_timers will not free up the timer and > > it has to be explicitly freed with del_timer_??. > > I am not sure I understand you but no, del_timer{,_sync} is not needed. > > __run_timer deletes timer from base->tv? list and clears 'pending flag'. > > __del_timer_sync sets ->_base = NULL, but it is merely optimization. > It could set ->_base = base, but in that case next del_timer_sync() > call will need spin_lock(base->lock) again. For some reason I thought that ->base == NULL would have special significance outside of the function you discussed. Looks fine to me now. - 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/