lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 04/44] posix-cpu-timers: Fixup stale comment
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 03:31:39PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2019, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > So I propose to change the behaviour of case 1) so that $TARGET doesn't call
> > posix_cpu_timers_exit(). We instead wait for $OWNER to exit and call
> > exit_itimers() -> timer_delete_hook($ITIMER) -> posix_cpu_timer_del($ITIMER).
> > It is going to find $TARGET as the target of $ITIMER but no more sighand. Then
> > finally it removes $ITIMER from $TARGET->cputime_expires.
> > We basically do the same thing as in 2) but without locking sighand since it's NULL
> > on $TARGET at this time.
>
> But what do we win with that? Horrors like this:
>
> task A task B task C
>
> arm_timer(A) arm_timer(A)
>
> do_exit()
>
> del_timer(A) del_timer(A)
> no sighand no_sighand
> list_del() list_del()
>
> Guess how well concurrent list deletion works.
>
> We must remove armed timers from the task/signal _before_ dropping sighand,
> really.

Ah right, there can be concurrent owners, nevermind.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-21 17:52    [W:0.101 / U:1.220 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site