lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH] timers fixes/improvements
Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> wrote:
> >
> > +void fastcall init_timer(struct timer_list *timer)
> > +{
> > + timer->entry.next = NULL;
> > + timer->_base = &per_cpu(tvec_bases,
> > + __smp_processor_id()).t_base;
> > + timer->magic = TIMER_MAGIC;
> > +}
>
> __smp_processor_id() is not implemented on all architectures. I'll switch
> this to _smp_processor_id().

Wow, I did not know.

> It's a rather odd thing which you're doing there. Why does a
> not-yet-scheduled timer need a ->_base?

Because all locking goes through timer_list->base->lock now.
That is why timer_list->lock can be deleted. The timer is
always locked via loc_timer_base().

timer->base == NULL only temporally when __mod_timer() does
while switching timer's base:
base = lock_timer_base(timer);
timer->base = NULL;
unlock(base->lock);
// Nobody can use this timer, lock_timer_base()
// will spin waiting for ->base != 0
lock(new_base->lock);
timer->base = new_base;
unlock(new_base);
So ->base == NULL means that timer itself is locked, not it's
base. That is why __mod_timer() do not need to hold 2 spinlocks
at once.

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: 2005-04-06 13:31    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans