Re: Is there a race between __mod_timer() and del_timer()?

[David Howells]

David Howells <dhowe...@redhat.com> wrote:

> I think it might just be best to put a note in the comments in __mod_timer().

How about the attached?

David
---
commit d538c734f9bf885292b88a81a06c5efee528d70d
Author: David Howells <dhowe...@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed Nov 8 10:20:27 2017 +0000

    Add a comment into __mod_timer() noting a possible race with del_timer()
    
    Add a comment into __mod_timer() noting a possible race with del_timer() in
    which the 'common optimization' case could leave the timer unstarted if
    del_timer() happens between the timer_pending() check and the timer
    expiration check.
    
    Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowe...@redhat.com>

diff --git a/kernel/time/timer.c b/kernel/time/timer.c
index f2674a056c26..e0ac4486529c 100644
--- a/kernel/time/timer.c
+++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
@@ -949,6 +949,9 @@ __mod_timer(struct timer_list *timer, unsigned long 
expires, bool pending_only)
                 * The downside of this optimization is that it can result in
                 * larger granularity than you would get from adding a new
                 * timer with this expiry.
+                *
+                * Note that if del_timer() happens whilst we're just here, we
+                * will return with the timer unstarted.
                 */
                if (timer->expires == expires)
                        return 1;