lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Is there a race between __mod_timer() and del_timer()?
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, David Howells wrote:

> Is there a race between the optimisation for networking code in __mod_timer()
> and del_timer() - or, at least, a race that matters?
>
> Consider:
>
> CPU A CPU B
> =============================== ===============================
> [timer X is active]
> ==>__mod_timer(X)
> if (timer_pending(timer))
> [Take the true path]
> -- IRQ -- ==>del_timer(X)
> <==
> if (timer->expires == expires)
> [Take the true path]
> <==return 1
> [timer X is not active]
>
> There's no locking to prevent this, but __mod_timer() returns without
> restarting the timer. I'm not sure this is a problem exactly, however, since
> del_timer() *was* issued, and could've deleted the timer after __mod_timer()
> returned.

Correct, if two CPUs fiddle with the same timer concurrently then there is
no guaranteed outcome.

> A couple of possible alleviations:
>
> (1) Recheck timer_pending() before returning from __mod_timer().

That's just adding more instructions into that code path for a dubious
value.

> (2) Set timer->expires to jiffies in del_timer() - but since there's nothing
> preventing the optimisation in __mod_timer() from occurring concurrently
> with del_timer(), this probably won't help.

Right.

> I think it might just be best to put a note in the comments in __mod_timer().

Agreed.

Thanks,

tglx

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-08 21:11    [W:0.041 / U:0.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site