> Hm, I think I found one weird scenario which is not handled fine with > your patch. > > Say you have two timers A and B. Assume both expire on the same time > (and they are inserted in the eviction list in this order, first A, > then B). Then, A re-schedules B in its callback. B is reinserted > in the tree, however, B is still in the eviction list. > > With aeeb7070f84437aa608a3d843346b1efa916d175, since we don't > touch the list head. B will be removed from the tree, but I think it > should remain there as it has been rescheduled. > > Yes, this scenario is strange, but I think we try to cover all possible > situations. So I think my patch should be applied instead.
You're right. Even worse, with my patch during the scan of the eviction list, we'll call the new B callback with the new B data at the old time. > Thanks for collecting the patches that went into rbtree.c in the linux > kernel, btw. fyi, I skipped the few last ones that add a new "augmented rb tree" functionality that we don't need (yet?). Cheers, Sylvain
