On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Richard Cochran
<richardcoch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 11:46:30PM +0200, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
>> +/* Should run once every mlx5e_tstamp->overflow_period */
>> +static void mlx5e_timestamp_overflow(struct work_struct *work)
>> +{
>> + struct delayed_work *dwork = to_delayed_work(work);
>> + struct mlx5e_tstamp *tstamp = container_of(dwork, struct mlx5e_tstamp,
>> overflow_work);
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> +
>> + write_lock_irqsave(&tstamp->lock, flags);
>> + timecounter_read(&tstamp->clock);
>> + if (tstamp->overflow_period)
>> + schedule_delayed_work(&tstamp->overflow_work,
>> tstamp->overflow_period);
>
> You don't need this test, and the call to schedule_delayed_work can be
> outside of the lock.
>
think of a case where:
CPU1: is just about to call
"schedule_delayed_work(&tstamp->overflow_work,
tstamp->overflow_period);"
CPU2: cancel_delayed_work
In this case cancel_dalyed_work_sync (CPU2) will wait for CPU1 to
complete but CPU1 will re-arm the work, and we will
be left with tstamp->overflow_work running forever.
>> + write_unlock_irqrestore(&tstamp->lock, flags);
>> +}
>
>> +void mlx5e_timestamp_cleanup(struct mlx5e_priv *priv)
>> +{
>> + struct mlx5e_tstamp *tstamp = &priv->tstamp;
>> +
>> + if (!MLX5_CAP_GEN(priv->mdev, device_frequency_khz))
>> + return;
>> +
>> + write_lock(&tstamp->lock);
>> + tstamp->overflow_period = 0; /* Signal overflow_check to stop */
>> + write_unlock(&tstamp->lock);
>
> This is unnecessary because
>
>> +
>> + cancel_delayed_work_sync(&tstamp->overflow_work);
>
> this will block until the work is cancelled.
>
see my previous comment it sure will block but without the protected
signal " tstamp->overflow_period = 0;"
the work can reschedule itself.
>> +}
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
