lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jul]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: PATCH: Race in 2.6.0-test2 timer code

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Andrew Morton wrote:

> Andrea says that we need to take the per-timer lock in add_timer() and
> del_timer(), but I haven't yet got around to working out why.

this makes no sense - in 2.6 (and in 2.4) there's no safe add_timer() /
del_timer() use without using external SMP synchronization. (There's one
special timer use variant involving del_timer_sync() that was safe in 2.4
but is unsafe in 2.6, see below.)

and i dont think Linas' patch is correct either - how can the timer base
change under us? We are holding the timer spinlock.

What i'd propose is the attached (tested, against 2.6.0-test2) patch
instead. It unifies the functionality of add_timer() and mod_timer(), and
makes any combination of the timer API calls completely SMP-safe.
del_timer() is still not using the timer lock.

this patch fixes the only timer bug in 2.6 i'm aware of: the
del_timer_sync() + add_timer() combination in kernel/itimer.c is buggy.
This was correct code in 2.4, because there it was safe to do an
add_timer() from the timer handler itself, parallel to a del_timer_sync().
If we want to make this safe in 2.6 too (which i think we want to) then we
have to make add_timer() almost equivalent to mod_timer(), locking-wise.
And once we are at this point i think it's much cleaner to actually make
add_timer() a variant of mod_timer(). (There's no locking cost for
add_timer(), only the cost of an extra branch. And we've removed another
commonly used function from the icache.)

Linas, could you please give this patch a go, does it make a difference to
your timer list corruption problem? I've booted it on SMP and UP as well.

Ingo

--- linux/include/linux/timer.h.orig
+++ linux/include/linux/timer.h
@@ -60,11 +60,30 @@ static inline int timer_pending(const st
return timer->base != NULL;
}

-extern void add_timer(struct timer_list * timer);
extern void add_timer_on(struct timer_list *timer, int cpu);
extern int del_timer(struct timer_list * timer);
+extern int __mod_timer(struct timer_list *timer, unsigned long expires);
extern int mod_timer(struct timer_list *timer, unsigned long expires);
-
+
+/***
+ * add_timer - start a timer
+ * @timer: the timer to be added
+ *
+ * The kernel will do a ->function(->data) callback from the
+ * timer interrupt at the ->expired point in the future. The
+ * current time is 'jiffies'.
+ *
+ * The timer's ->expired, ->function (and if the handler uses it, ->data)
+ * fields must be set prior calling this function.
+ *
+ * Timers with an ->expired field in the past will be executed in the next
+ * timer tick.
+ */
+static inline void add_timer(struct timer_list * timer)
+{
+ __mod_timer(timer, timer->expires);
+}
+
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
extern int del_timer_sync(struct timer_list * timer);
#else
--- linux/kernel/timer.c.orig
+++ linux/kernel/timer.c
@@ -144,34 +144,62 @@ static void internal_add_timer(tvec_base
list_add_tail(&timer->entry, vec);
}

-/***
- * add_timer - start a timer
- * @timer: the timer to be added
- *
- * The kernel will do a ->function(->data) callback from the
- * timer interrupt at the ->expired point in the future. The
- * current time is 'jiffies'.
- *
- * The timer's ->expired, ->function (and if the handler uses it, ->data)
- * fields must be set prior calling this function.
- *
- * Timers with an ->expired field in the past will be executed in the next
- * timer tick. It's illegal to add an already pending timer.
- */
-void add_timer(struct timer_list *timer)
+int __mod_timer(struct timer_list *timer, unsigned long expires)
{
- tvec_base_t *base = &get_cpu_var(tvec_bases);
- unsigned long flags;
-
- BUG_ON(timer_pending(timer) || !timer->function);
+ tvec_base_t *old_base, *new_base;
+ unsigned long flags;
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ BUG_ON(!timer->function);

check_timer(timer);

- spin_lock_irqsave(&base->lock, flags);
- internal_add_timer(base, timer);
- timer->base = base;
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&base->lock, flags);
- put_cpu_var(tvec_bases);
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&timer->lock, flags);
+ new_base = &__get_cpu_var(tvec_bases);
+repeat:
+ old_base = timer->base;
+
+ /*
+ * Prevent deadlocks via ordering by old_base < new_base.
+ */
+ if (old_base && (new_base != old_base)) {
+ if (old_base < new_base) {
+ spin_lock(&new_base->lock);
+ spin_lock(&old_base->lock);
+ } else {
+ spin_lock(&old_base->lock);
+ spin_lock(&new_base->lock);
+ }
+ /*
+ * The timer base might have been cancelled while we were
+ * trying to take the lock(s):
+ */
+ if (timer->base != old_base) {
+ spin_unlock(&new_base->lock);
+ spin_unlock(&old_base->lock);
+ goto repeat;
+ }
+ } else
+ spin_lock(&new_base->lock);
+
+ /*
+ * Delete the previous timeout (if there was any), and install
+ * the new one:
+ */
+ if (old_base) {
+ list_del(&timer->entry);
+ ret = 1;
+ }
+ timer->expires = expires;
+ internal_add_timer(new_base, timer);
+ timer->base = new_base;
+
+ if (old_base && (new_base != old_base))
+ spin_unlock(&old_base->lock);
+ spin_unlock(&new_base->lock);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&timer->lock, flags);
+
+ return ret;
}

/***
@@ -179,7 +207,7 @@ void add_timer(struct timer_list *timer)
* @timer: the timer to be added
* @cpu: the CPU to start it on
*
- * This is not very scalable on SMP.
+ * This is not very scalable on SMP. Double adds are not possible.
*/
void add_timer_on(struct timer_list *timer, int cpu)
{
@@ -217,10 +245,6 @@ void add_timer_on(struct timer_list *tim
*/
int mod_timer(struct timer_list *timer, unsigned long expires)
{
- tvec_base_t *old_base, *new_base;
- unsigned long flags;
- int ret = 0;
-
BUG_ON(!timer->function);

check_timer(timer);
@@ -233,52 +257,7 @@ int mod_timer(struct timer_list *timer,
if (timer->expires == expires && timer_pending(timer))
return 1;

- spin_lock_irqsave(&timer->lock, flags);
- new_base = &__get_cpu_var(tvec_bases);
-repeat:
- old_base = timer->base;
-
- /*
- * Prevent deadlocks via ordering by old_base < new_base.
- */
- if (old_base && (new_base != old_base)) {
- if (old_base < new_base) {
- spin_lock(&new_base->lock);
- spin_lock(&old_base->lock);
- } else {
- spin_lock(&old_base->lock);
- spin_lock(&new_base->lock);
- }
- /*
- * The timer base might have been cancelled while we were
- * trying to take the lock(s):
- */
- if (timer->base != old_base) {
- spin_unlock(&new_base->lock);
- spin_unlock(&old_base->lock);
- goto repeat;
- }
- } else
- spin_lock(&new_base->lock);
-
- /*
- * Delete the previous timeout (if there was any), and install
- * the new one:
- */
- if (old_base) {
- list_del(&timer->entry);
- ret = 1;
- }
- timer->expires = expires;
- internal_add_timer(new_base, timer);
- timer->base = new_base;
-
- if (old_base && (new_base != old_base))
- spin_unlock(&old_base->lock);
- spin_unlock(&new_base->lock);
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&timer->lock, flags);
-
- return ret;
+ return __mod_timer(timer, expires);
}

/***

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.161 / U:0.736 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site