Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759569AbXEOWIm (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 May 2007 18:08:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755616AbXEOWIf (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 May 2007 18:08:35 -0400 Received: from mail.screens.ru ([213.234.233.54]:43662 "EHLO mail.screens.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755286AbXEOWIe (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 May 2007 18:08:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 02:08:12 +0400 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Jarek Poplawski Cc: Tejun Heo , Andrew Morton , David Chinner , David Howells , Gautham Shenoy , Ingo Molnar , Srivatsa Vaddagiri , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] make cancel_rearming_delayed_work() reliable Message-ID: <20070515220812.GB615@tv-sign.ru> References: <464475EB.3000408@gmail.com> <20070511134714.GA191@tv-sign.ru> <46448965.7070500@gmail.com> <20070511145345.GA240@tv-sign.ru> <4645559D.4050602@gmail.com> <20070513192753.GA3014@tv-sign.ru> <46477239.9030007@gmail.com> <20070514194446.GA159@tv-sign.ru> <46496EC1.3090109@gmail.com> <20070515130904.GB3050@ff.dom.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070515130904.GB3050@ff.dom.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1310 Lines: 28 On 05/15, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > I've overheared somebody is talking about my favorite 2-nd bit! > Probably I miss many points (your talk isn't the most clear), > but I wonder if this bit couldn't be used otherwise: try_to_grab_ > sets the bit - others know cancel is pending, so don't disturb: > e.g. insert_work doesn't queue (at least after works' cpu change, > which seems to be the main problem here). Probably there is > no reason to test this bit in all places - only in the most > problematic; so, in insert_work maybe only after checking > the cpu was changed. If this way is possible, we could avoid > setting the VALID bit when not needed (no cancel pending). Maybe > we could also think about some form of cooperation - e.g. clearing > of this or other bit to ack the work was catched - of course > this last thing could be too much, so not necessarily now. We already discussed this... Surely, we can do this. I believe this will complicate (and _imho_ uglify) the code too much. May be I am wrong. Please provide a detailed description? Oleg. - 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/