lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/9] timer locking optimization
    Roman Zippel wrote:
    >
    > @@ -210,6 +203,7 @@ int __mod_timer(struct timer_list *timer
    >
    > BUG_ON(!timer->function);
    >
    > +restart:
    > base = lock_timer_base(timer, &flags);
    >
    > if (timer_pending(timer)) {
    > @@ -231,11 +225,18 @@ int __mod_timer(struct timer_list *timer
    > /* The timer remains on a former base */
    > new_base = container_of(base, tvec_base_t, t_base);
    > } else {
    > - /* See the comment in lock_timer_base() */
    > - timer->base = NULL;
    > + /*
    > + * We shortly release the timer and the timer can
    > + * migrate to another cpu, so recheck the base after
    > + * getting the lock.
    > + */
    > + timer->base = &new_base->t_base;
    > spin_unlock(&base->lock);
    > spin_lock(&new_base->t_base.lock);

    Still not correct, I beleive.

    The problem is that you are changing timer->base = &new_base->t_base
    without holding new_base->t_base.lock, this is racy vs timer_del().
    Suppose we are calling __mod_timer(pending_timer):

    __mod_timer() locks old base, deletes the timer, changes timer's base,
    unlocks old base.

    Another cpu calls del_timer(). It is possible that this cpu will
    see the new value of ->base == new_base before it sees changes in the
    timer->entry. It locks new_base, but this is not enough, because the
    timer was removed from list under the old base's lock and we don't
    have a proper serialization. So it is possible that del_timer() sees
    that the timer is still pending, and will try to delete it again.

    In other words, in this scenario __mod_timer() and del_timer() will
    take 2 different locks trying to serialize access to common data.

    You can solve this with memory barriers, but this will be pessimization,
    not optimization (you will also need smp_rmb in lock_timer_base()).

    Honestly, personally I don'like this patch even if it was correct.
    It complicates the code, and the only win is that it removes
    'if (likely(base != NULL))' from the fast path, I doubt this is
    noticeable.

    Also, __mod_timer() becomes "non atomic", but probably this is ok.

    Btw, I think you have the same problems in "[PATCH 2/9] ptimer core".

    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-11-30 09:46    [W:0.027 / U:30.976 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site