netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: tx_timeout and timer serialisation

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: tx_timeout and timer serialisation
From: Andrey Savochkin <saw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 13:38:07 +0800
Cc: becker@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200005200524.WAA18905@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from "David S. Miller" on Fri, May 19, 2000 at 10:24:39PM
References: <3925BB00.B1CDDFE7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.10.10005192039250.825-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <Pine.LNX.4.10.10005192039250.825-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <20000520122715.A7682@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <39262113.19447850@xxxxxxxxxx> <200005200524.WAA18905@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 10:24:39PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
>    Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 15:22:27 +1000
>    From: Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
>    I have just written a little kernel module which has confirmed that the
>    handler-keeps-running-after-del_timer bug exists in both 2.2.14 and
>    2.3.99-pre9.  Not good.  Very not good, IMO.
> 
> I just noticed this thread, and has del_timer_sync been mentioned yet?
> That is what should be used to make sure the timer is done in 2.3.x,
> unless something else prevents it's usage (locking conflict).

del_timer_sync doesn't ensure that the timer has really exited (as opposite
to just calling timer_exit()).
We cannot free the code segment where the timer handler resides even
with del_timer_sync!

        Andrey

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>