Re: [PATCH 4/4] workqueue: Remove now superfluouscancel_delayed_work() calls

From: Dmitry Torokhov
Date: Thu Feb 03 2011 - 11:46:08 EST


On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 05:19:06PM +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Peter.
>
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 03:09:44PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Since queue_delayed_work() can now deal with existing timers, we don't
> > need to explicitly call cancel_delayed_work() anymore.
>
> This is nice but there's small complication with the way
> queue_delayed_work() behaves. If a delayed work item is already
> pending, another queue_delayed_work() doesn't modify the delay whether
> the new delay is longer or shorter than the current one. The previous
> patch doesn't really change the behavior as the whole thing is gated
> with WORK_STRUCT_PENDING_BIT.
>
> So, cancel_delayed_work() followed by queue_delayed_work() schedules
> the work to be executed at the specified time regardless of the
> current pending state while queue_delayed_work() takes effect iff
> currently the work item is not pending.
>
> The current behavior is weird and it often is easier to use explicit
> timer + work item if the timer needs to be modified, but it has been
> that way from the beginning so I don't think changing it would be a
> good idea. We can introduce a new interface (mod_delayed_work()
> maybe) for this tho.
>

I agree. If we were to change queue_delayed_work() we'd have to verify
that all users that do not presently use cancel_delayed_work() in
reschedule would be OK with the new behavior.

Thanks.

--
Dmitry
--
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/