Re: [PATCH 3/3] timer: Reduce unnecessary sighand lock contention

From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Wed Aug 26 2015 - 13:53:40 EST

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Jason Low <jason.low2@xxxxxx> wrote:
> This patch addresses this by having the thread_group_cputimer structure
> maintain a boolean to signify when a thread in the group is already
> checking for process wide timers, and adds extra logic in the fastpath
> to check the boolean.

It is not at all obvious why the unlocked read of that variable is
safe, and why there is no race with another thread just about to end
its check_process_timers().

I can well imagine that this is all perfectly safe and fine, but I'd
really like to see that comment about _why_ that's the case, and why a
completely unlocked access without even memory barriers is fine.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at