[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:20:16 +0100
From: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de>
To: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, gregkh@...e.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ostrikov@...dia.com, adobriyan@...il.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] kref: Remove the memory barriers
Am Montag, 12. Dezember 2011, 10:57:31 schrieb Ming Lei:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 11:48 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> >> For kref, maybe it is still multiple operations done on one cpu vs them
> >> being visible on another, but seems a bit implicit, see the common kref
> >> usage below:
> >>
> >> CPU0 CPU1
> >> A:kref_init(&obj->ref)
> >
> > how does CPU0 get a ref to obj?
>
> Suppose open/close/read/.. context is run on CPU0, and driver .probe/.release
> context(hotplug context) is run on CPU1. There are a few examples on
> usb driver(eg. usb-skeleton.c, ...)
USB generally relies on an implied barrier just as:
/* we can register the device now, as it is ready */
retval = usb_register_dev(interface, &skel_class);
Generally reference counting cannot help you if kfree() is involved
Regards
Oliver
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists