On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 09:29:20AM +0800, qiaozhou wrote:
> On 2017年07月26日 22:16, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >--- a/kernel/time/timer.c
> >+++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
> >@@ -1301,10 +1301,12 @@ static void expire_timers(struct timer_b
> > if (timer->flags & TIMER_IRQSAFE) {
> > raw_spin_unlock(&base->lock);
> > call_timer_fn(timer, fn, data);
> >+ base->running_timer = NULL;
> > raw_spin_lock(&base->lock);
> > } else {
> > raw_spin_unlock_irq(&base->lock);
> > call_timer_fn(timer, fn, data);
> >+ base->running_timer = NULL;
> > raw_spin_lock_irq(&base->lock);
> > }
> > }
> It should work for this particular issue and I'll test it. Previously I
> thought it was unsafe to touch base->running_timer without holding lock.
I think it works out in practice because base->lock and base->running_timer
share a cacheline, so end up being ordered correctly. We should probably be
using READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE for accessing the running_time field though.
One thing I don't get though, is why try_to_del_timer_sync needs to check
base->running_timer at all. Given that it holds the base->lock, can't it
be the person that sets it to NULL?
Will
