On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 01:05:11PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:54:06 +0200, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 09:25:07AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > Orthogonally, the refill-stop code is still buggy, as you noted. > > > > Sorry I don't understand how it's still buggy. > > Both places where we call: > > cancel_delayed_work_sync(&vi->refill); > > Do not actually guarantee that vi->refill isn't running, because it > can requeue itself. A 'bool no_more_refill' field seems like the > simplest fix for this, but I don't think it's sufficient. > > Tejun, is this correct? What's the correct way to synchronously stop a > delayed_work which can "schedule_delayed_work(&vi->refill, HZ/2);" on > itself? > > Thanks, > Rusty. Another question, wanted to make sure: virtnet_poll does schedule_delayed_work(&vi->refill, 0); separately refill work itself also does schedule_delayed_work(&vi->refill, HZ/2); If two such events happen twice, on different CPUs, we are still guaranteed the work will only run once, right? _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
