Re: [PATCH] make cancel_rearming_delayed_work() reliable

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 05/15, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> 
> I've overheared somebody is talking about my favorite 2-nd bit!
> Probably I miss many points (your talk isn't the most clear),
> but I wonder if this bit couldn't be used otherwise: try_to_grab_
> sets the bit - others know cancel is pending, so don't disturb:
> e.g. insert_work doesn't queue (at least after works' cpu change,
> which seems to be the main problem here). Probably there is
> no reason to test this bit in all places - only in the most
> problematic; so, in insert_work maybe only after checking
> the cpu was changed. If this way is possible, we could avoid
> setting the VALID bit when not needed (no cancel pending). Maybe
> we could also think about some form of cooperation - e.g. clearing
> of this or other bit to ack the work was catched - of course
> this last thing could be too much, so not necessarily now.

We already discussed this... Surely, we can do this. I believe
this will complicate (and _imho_ uglify) the code too much.

May be I am wrong. Please provide a detailed description?

Oleg.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/