LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Faisal Latif <faisal.latif@intel.com>,
Roland Dreier <roland@kernel.org>,
Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@intel.com>,
Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@gmail.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
Alessandro Rubini <rubini@cvml.unipv.it>,
Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>,
Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@suse.com>, Joel Becker <jlbec@evilplan.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] workqueue: Remove now superfluous cancel_delayed_work() calls
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 12:13:01 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110204111301.GD12133@htj.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1296755141.26581.470.camel@laptop>
Hello, Peter.
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 06:45:41PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 17:19 +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 03:09:44PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Since queue_delayed_work() can now deal with existing timers, we don't
> > > need to explicitly call cancel_delayed_work() anymore.
> >
> > This is nice but there's small complication with the way
> > queue_delayed_work() behaves. If a delayed work item is already
> > pending, another queue_delayed_work() doesn't modify the delay whether
> > the new delay is longer or shorter than the current one. The previous
> > patch doesn't really change the behavior as the whole thing is gated
> > with WORK_STRUCT_PENDING_BIT.
> >
> > So, cancel_delayed_work() followed by queue_delayed_work() schedules
> > the work to be executed at the specified time regardless of the
> > current pending state while queue_delayed_work() takes effect iff
> > currently the work item is not pending.
>
> Right, I didn't think it would matter much, the difference is tiny. Only
> a small window between the timer triggering and the work getting
> scheduled has a different semantics, it used to be the same as before
> that window, now its like after that window.
>
> Since its all timing the code needs to deal with those cases anyway, no?
No, AFAICS the change from add_timer() to mod_timer() doesn't make any
difference. The control never reaches there if the work item is
already pending. Please consider the following two sequences.
seq1. queue_delayed_work(wq, dwork, 10*HZ);
cancel_delayed_work(dwork);
queue_delayed_work(wq, dwork, 5*HZ);
seq2. queue_delayed_work(wq, dwork, 10*HZ);
queue_delayed_work(wq, dwork, 5*HZ);
With or without the patch, dwork in seq1 will execute in 5 seconds,
and, again, with our without the patch dwork in seq2 will execute in
10 seconds, because queueing is gated by WORK_STRUCT_PENDING_BIT and
if the bit is already set the timer isn't modified at all.
IOW, those cancel_delayed_work()'s are there not because
queue_delayed_work() calls add_timer() instead of mod_timer().
They're there because queue_delayed_work() always uses the first
timeout duration and the users want to change it to a new value.
As I wrote before, I'm not a fan of the current behavior but that's
how it is currently. This patch series doesn't change the behavior
because the timers are guaranteed to be offline when
queue_delayed_work_on() calls add_timer(). To actually change the
behavior, queue_delayed_work_on() needs to be restructured and all its
users audited.
Thank you.
--
tejun
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-04 11:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-03 14:09 [PATCH 0/4] del_timer_sync() and queue_delayed_work() Peter Zijlstra
2011-02-03 14:09 ` [PATCH 1/4] lockdep, timer: Fix del_timer_sync() annotation Peter Zijlstra
2011-02-03 15:35 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-02-05 1:07 ` Nick Bowler
2011-02-04 3:28 ` Yong Zhang
2011-02-04 9:34 ` [tip:timers/urgent] " tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
2011-02-03 14:09 ` [PATCH 2/4] timer: Provide mod_timer_on() Peter Zijlstra
2011-02-03 14:09 ` [PATCH 3/4] workqueue: Use mod_timer for queue_delayed_work() Peter Zijlstra
2011-02-03 14:09 ` [PATCH 4/4] workqueue: Remove now superfluous cancel_delayed_work() calls Peter Zijlstra
2011-02-03 16:19 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-03 16:45 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2011-02-03 17:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-02-04 11:13 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110204111301.GD12133@htj.dyndns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=faisal.latif@intel.com \
--cc=hal.rosenstock@gmail.com \
--cc=jlbec@evilplan.org \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linville@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=mfasheh@suse.com \
--cc=roland@kernel.org \
--cc=rubini@cvml.unipv.it \
--cc=sean.hefty@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=yong.zhang0@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).