Hello.
I am not sure, but I think this patch incorrect.
> @@ -466,6 +482,7 @@ repeat:
> set_running_timer(base, timer);
> smp_wmb();
> timer->base = NULL;
------> WINDOW <------
> + set_last_running(timer, base);
> spin_unlock_irq(&base->lock);
Suppose it is the first invocation of timer, so
timer->last_running == NULL.
What if del_timer_sync() happens in that window?
del_timer_sync:
del_timer(); // timer->base == NULL, returns
base = timer->last_running;
if (base) // no, it is still NULL
...
if (timer->base != NULL || timer->last_running != base)
goto del_again; // not taken
return;
I think it is not enough to exchange these 2 lines in
__run_timers, we also need barriers.
Oleg.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
