timers: serialize timers
PATCH 3/5 timers: serialize timers
I think it is supposed that timers are serialized wrt to itself, but I can't find any documentation about it.
If CPU_0 does mod_timer(jiffies+1) while the timer is currently running on CPU 1, it is quite possible that local interrupt on CPU_0 will start that timer before it finished on CPU_1.
With this patch __mod_timer() locks old_base even if timer is not pending, like del_timer_sync() does. If the timer is still running, and old_base != new_base, __mod_timer() retries.
Now we have:
1. the timer's handler can't run on different cpus at the same time.
2. the timer's base can't be changed during execution of the timer's handler.
Signed-off-by Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>
kernel/timer.c renamed from kernel/timer.c~3_MOD +10 -7
@@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ int __mod_timer(struct timer_list *timerspin_lock_irqsave (&timer->lock, flags); new_base = &__get_cpu_var (tvec_bases); repeat: - old_base =__get_base (timer); + old_base =timer_base (timer);/* * Prevent deadlocks via ordering by old_base < new_base.
@@ -208,29 +208,32 @@ repeat: }/* * The timer base might have been cancelled while we were -* trying to take the lock(s): +* trying to take the lock(s), or can still be running on +* old_base's CPU. */ -if (__get_base (timer) != old_base) { +if (timer_base (timer) != old_base + || old_base->running_timer == timer) {spin_unlock (&new_base->lock);spin_unlock (&old_base->lock); goto repeat; } }else {spin_lock (&new_base->lock); -if (__get_base (timer) != old_base) { +if (timer_base (timer) != old_base) {spin_unlock (&new_base->lock); goto repeat; } }/* -* Delete the previous timeout (if there was any), and install -* the new one: +* Delete the previous timeout (if there was any). +* We hold timer->lock, no need to check old_base != 0. */ -if (old_base) { +if (timer_pending (timer)) {list_del (&timer->entry); ret =1 ; } + timer->expires = expires;internal_add_timer (new_base, timer);__set_base (timer, new_base,1 );