Re: [v2 PATCH 1/4] timers: framework to identify pinned timers.

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 03/06, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote:
>
> * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> [2009-03-05 17:53:40]:
>
> > > @@ -736,6 +759,7 @@ void add_timer_on(struct timer_list *tim
> > >  	struct tvec_base *base = per_cpu(tvec_bases, cpu);
> > >  	unsigned long flags;
> > >
> > > +	timer_set_pinned(timer);
> >
> > But we never clear TBASE_PINNED_FLAG?
> >
> > If we use mod_timer() next time, the timer remains "pinned". I do not say
> > this is really wrong, but a bit strange imho.
> >
> > Oleg.
> >
>
> The pinned timer would expect to continue firing on the same CPU
> although it does a mod_timer() the next time, right?

Why? Let's suppose we call queue_delayed_work_on(), and next time
we use queue_delayed_work() with the same dwork. The timer is still
pinned, this doesn't look consistent to me.

> Thats why I have not cleared the TBASE_PINNED_FLAG.

Personally, I don't like this flag. I think that "pinned" should
be the argument for mod_timer(), not the "property" of timer_list.

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/