mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	David Chinner <dgc@sgi.com>, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Gautham Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make-cancel_rearming_delayed_work-reliable-fix
Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 12:31:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070507103107.GD1754@ff.dom.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070505213213.GA1013@tv-sign.ru>

On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 01:32:13AM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> on top of
> 	make-cancel_rearming_delayed_work-reliable-spelling.patch
> 
> Add cpu-relax() into spinloops, and a comments update.
> 
> Small note. The new implementation has another downside. Suppose that rearming
> work->func() gets a preemtion after setting WORK_STRUCT_PENDING but before
> add_timer/__queue_work. In that case cancel_rearming_delayed_work() will burn
> CPU in a busy-wait loop. Fortunately this can happen only with CONFIG_PREEMPT
> and we spin with preemption enabled.
> 
> We can avoid this,
> 
> 	void cancel_rearming_delayed_work(struct delayed_work *dwork)
> 	{
> 		int retry;
> 
> 		do {
> 			retry = !del_timer(&dwork->timer) &&
> 				!try_to_grab_pending(&dwork->work);
> 			wait_on_work(&dwork->work);
> 		} while (retry);
> 
> 		work_clear_pending(&dwork->work);
> 	}
> 
> but I don't think this is worth fixing.

I think so.

There is a lot of new things in the final version of this
patch. I guess, there was no such problem in the previous
version.

I can also see you have new doubts about usefulness, which
I cannot understand:
- even if there are some slowdowns, where does it matter?
- the "old" method uses only one method of cancelling, i.e.
del_timer, not trying to stop requeuing or to remove from
the queue; it seems to be effective only with long delayed
timers, and its real problems are probably mostly invisible.

BTW, I'm still not convinced all additions are needed:
the "old" cancel_rearming_  doesn't care about checking
or waiting on anything after del_timer positive.

Regards,
Jarek P.

PS: I'll try to check this all in the evening and will
write tomorrow, if found something interesting.

  reply	other threads:[~2007-05-07 10:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-05-03 20:42 [PATCH] make cancel_rearming_delayed_work() reliable Oleg Nesterov
2007-05-04  1:15 ` Andrew Morton
2007-05-04 17:09   ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-05-05 21:32   ` [PATCH] make-cancel_rearming_delayed_work-reliable-fix Oleg Nesterov
2007-05-07 10:31     ` Jarek Poplawski [this message]
2007-05-07 10:34       ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-05-07 11:55         ` Anton Vorontsov
2007-05-07 11:33           ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-05-08  9:16         ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-05-08 12:02           ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-05-08 13:07             ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-05-08  7:15 ` [PATCH] make cancel_rearming_delayed_work() reliable Jarek Poplawski
2007-05-08 12:31   ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-05-08 13:56     ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-05-08 14:05       ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-05-08 14:32         ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-05-08 14:12       ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-05-11 13:55 ` Tejun Heo
2007-05-11 13:47   ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-05-11 15:19     ` Tejun Heo
2007-05-11 14:53       ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-05-12  5:50         ` Tejun Heo
2007-05-13 19:27           ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-05-13 20:16             ` Tejun Heo
2007-05-13 21:25               ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-05-14 19:44               ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-05-15  8:26                 ` Tejun Heo
2007-05-15 13:09                   ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-05-15 22:08                     ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-05-16  5:21                       ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-05-15 22:00                   ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-05-16 11:25                     ` Tejun Heo
2007-05-16 18:52                       ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-05-17  9:36                         ` Tejun Heo
2007-05-18  7:35                         ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-05-18  8:13                           ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-05-18 13:33                           ` Tejun Heo
2007-05-21  7:00                             ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-05-21  8:59                               ` Tejun Heo
2007-05-21 10:10                                 ` Jarek Poplawski

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20070507103107.GD1754@ff.dom.local \
    --to=jarkao2@o2.pl \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dgc@sgi.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=ego@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
    --cc=vatsa@in.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome