Andrew,
On Sat, May 27, 2000 at 02:37:04PM +1000, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> > It's more than del_timer_sync() because it ensures that the code segment
> > isn't used by timer handler, and, thus, is suitable for module cleanups.
>
> Could you please explain this a little more? I don't see it.
I meant that the 2.3.99 del_timer_sync() waits for timer_exit() call
in the handler. The proposed code of wait_on_timers() waits for the end of
run_timer_list() and, thus, guarantees that the handler has _returned_, not
just called timer_exit().
It means that
set_do_not_readd_flag
del_timer
wait_on_timers()
MOD_DEC_USE_COUNT
is safe, while
del_timer_sync() /* 2.3.99 implementation */
MOD_DEC_USE_COUNT
isn't.
> Were you referring to the existing (2.3.99) del_timer_sync()?
Yes.
> > I've looked more precisely over your timer-race-6 patch.
> > It has not so big overhead as I expected for the first time.
> > However, I think it has a potential problem. In del_timer() you drop the
> > spinlock, wait for the handler completion, and then acquire the lock again
> > and check if the timer has been added again. It doesn't look very robust.
>
> You are correct.
>
> But remember that this whole code path is a one-in-a-million thing. So
> having another one-in-a-million race within it has improved things by,
> umm, a million. Plus if it ever does happen, we blurt out a warning,
> and the end result is the same as what we have now.
I'm just proposing to take the assumption that the handler is non-destructive
if the code calls del_timer() and simplify and harden the code.
We cannot touch timer_list structure in run_timer_list() because the handler
_may_ destroy it's sure that other code doesn't call del_timer() or
mod_timer() on it at the same time.
But in del_timer() we may assume that the structure is valid during the whole
call. I suspect that in your timer-race-6 code we may just go to the
beginning of del_timer function after spinning on "*vtl == timer" and drop
all the added_timer stuff.
>
> But I'll look at adding a 'goto retry' into that code path. Just have
> to work out how to test it...
[snip]
> > I suggest to assume that if del_timer is called than the timer cannot be free'd
> > or destroyed. If it isn't true, there will be race conditions in any case.
> > The assumption will simplify things a lot.
>
> That is the assumption which the existing del_timer_sync() makes.
>
> Having recently looked at a zillion timer handlers I believe this
> assumption is safe. But adding timer_exit() to every timer handler is
> unattractive for obvious reasons (ditto the reinsert-protection flag).
Yes.
> The existing del_timer_sync also raises the possibility of the module
> being unloaded prior to the handler returning, but this is so
> ridiculously improbable that even I wouldn't make a fuss about it.
Not too much ridiculous.
It's a design problem. All design problems are problems independently of how
often they show.
>
> > What do you think about it?
>
> I think I need to think some more :) Fun stuff.
>
> I hereby do solemnly swear to write Documentation/kernel-timers.txt!
:-) You're taken at word!
Best regards
Andrey
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 27 2000 - 01:18:33 EDT