Re: [PATCH 0/4] Fix forward()/expires() racing with concurrent arming

FUJITA Tomonori <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.rust-for-linux
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 11:02:27 +0200
Andreas Hindborg <[email protected]> wrote:

>> perf and CFS bandwidth have a flag as well as a lock. The flag is "do
>> not arm while armed", which is the same rule the types enforce
>> here. rtc and the softlockup watchdog look like they cancel first and
>> then start instead. None of them arms a timer that is active, so I
>> would rather the abstraction did not allow it either. Does that seem
>> reasonable?
> 
> I am fine with preventing starting a timer that is Started or Running,
> but I am not liking the `UniqueArc` requirement.
> 
> I have a use case in `rnull` where I have to start a timer behind an
> `Arc` with no way to obtain a `UniqueArc`, so I would prefer if that use
> case keeps on working. Without this, I would have to allocate a box and
> put it behind a lock, leading to double indirection.

Before the UniqueArc requirement, I would like to check which timer
you have in mind? The bandwidth timer, the per-command timer, or
something else? The two seem to need different things, so I would
rather not guess.

For the bandwidth timer I do not see where the handle would live, and that
is independent of UniqueArc. start() returns a handle that cancels the
timer when it is dropped, so it has to be kept somewhere, and the current
hrtimer API is the same. queue_rq() only gets a shared borrow of the queue
data, and the handle owns an Arc<T>, so putting it inside T means T holds a
refcount on itself and is never freed.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.