On 06/08, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2015-06-08 at 17:10 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 06/08, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > > I tend to agree, but I think its a pre-existing problem, not one
> > > > introduced by my proposed patch.
> > >
> > > Something like this would fix that I think. It fully preserves
> > > timer->state over hrtimer_start_range_ns().
> >
> > Yes, but I think we can do a bit better.
> >
> > Only for initial review, I need to re-check this...
>
> I'm having a wee bit of bother spotting how you version is 'better'.
>
> > And. I think that after you remove STATE_CALLBACK we can even kill
> > timer->state altogether, but this is another story.
>
> Ah, yes, we could introduce timerqueue_is_queued() which uses
> RB_EMPTY_NODE(). Obviating the need for hrtimer::state entirely.
Yes exactly.
And to me 2/3 looks like a cleanup in any case, __remove_hrtimer()
should do nothing with other bits. Yes,
timer->state |= HRTIMER_STATE_CALLBACK;
__remove_hrtimer(timer, base, true, 0);
in __run_hrtimer() looks worse than __remove_hrtimer(CALLBACK), but
you are going to kill STATE_CALLBACK. And this should even simplify
your patch a little bit.
But I agree, this is minor and subjective.
Oleg.
--
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/
