В Ср, 03/06/2015 в 23:13 +0200, Peter Zijlstra пишет:
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 07:26:00PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > > @@ -402,7 +394,8 @@ extern u64 hrtimer_get_next_event(void);
> > > */
> > > static inline int hrtimer_active(const struct hrtimer *timer)
> > > {
> > > - return timer->state != HRTIMER_STATE_INACTIVE;
> > > + return timer->state != HRTIMER_STATE_INACTIVE ||
> > > + timer->base->running == timer;
> > > }
> >
> > It seems to be not good, because hrtimer_active() check stops
> > to be atomic. So the things like hrtimer_try_to_cancel() race
> > with a callback of self-rearming timer and may return a false
> > positive result.
>
> Hurm.. the below isn't really pretty either I suppose. The best I can
> say about it is that's its not too expensive on x86.
>
> I should probably go sleep..
>
> --- a/include/linux/hrtimer.h
> +++ b/include/linux/hrtimer.h
> @@ -391,11 +391,25 @@ extern u64 hrtimer_get_next_event(void);
> * A timer is active, when it is enqueued into the rbtree or the
> * callback function is running or it's in the state of being migrated
> * to another cpu.
> + *
> + * See __run_hrtimer().
> */
> -static inline int hrtimer_active(const struct hrtimer *timer)
> +static inline bool hrtimer_active(const struct hrtimer *timer)
> {
> - return timer->state != HRTIMER_STATE_INACTIVE ||
> - timer->base->running == timer;
> + if (timer->state != HRTIMER_STATE_INACTIVE)
> + return true;
> +
> + smp_rmb(); /* C matches A */
> +
> + if (timer->base->running == timer)
> + return true;
> +
> + smp_rmb(); /* D matches B */
> +
> + if (timer->state != HRTIMER_STATE_INACTIVE)
> + return true;
> +
> + return false;
This races with two sequential timer handlers. hrtimer_active()
is preemptible everywhere, and no guarantees that all three "if"
conditions check the same timer tick.
How about transformation of hrtimer_bases.lock: raw_spinlock_t --> seqlock_t?
> }
>
> /*
> --- a/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
> @@ -1122,6 +1122,20 @@ static void __run_hrtimer(struct hrtimer
>
> debug_deactivate(timer);
> base->running = timer;
> +
> + /*
> + * Pairs with hrtimer_active().
> + *
> + * [S] base->running = timer [L] timer->state
> + * WMB RMB
> + * [S] timer->state = INACTIVE [L] base->running
> + *
> + * BUG_ON(base->running != timer && timer->state != INACTIVE)
> + *
> + * If we observe INACTIVE we must observe base->running == timer.
> + */
> + smp_wmb(); /* A matches C */
> +
> __remove_hrtimer(timer, base, HRTIMER_STATE_INACTIVE, 0);
> timer_stats_account_hrtimer(timer);
> fn = timer->function;
> @@ -1150,6 +1164,20 @@ static void __run_hrtimer(struct hrtimer
> !(timer->state & HRTIMER_STATE_ENQUEUED))
> enqueue_hrtimer(timer, base);
>
> + /*
> + * Pairs with hrtimer_active().
> + *
> + * [S] timer->state = ENQUEUED [L] base->running
> + * WMB RMB
> + * [S] base->running = NULL [L] timer->state
> + *
> + * BUG_ON(base->running == NULL && timer->state == INACTIVE)
> + *
> + * If we observe base->running == NULL, we must observe any preceding
> + * enqueue.
> + */
> + smp_wmb(); /* B matches D */
> +
> WARN_ON_ONCE(base->running != timer);
> base->running = NULL;
> }
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
