[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2018 07:45:43 +1000
From: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] rhashtable: use cmpxchg() to protect ->future_tbl.
On Sat, May 05 2018, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 01:54:14PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
>> Rather than borrowing one of the bucket locks to
>> protect ->future_tbl updates, use cmpxchg().
>> This gives more freedom to change how bucket locking
>> is implemented.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
>
> This looks nice.
>
>> - spin_unlock_bh(old_tbl->locks);
>> + rcu_assign_pointer(tmp, new_tbl);
>
> Do we need this barrier since cmpxchg is supposed to provide memory
> barrier semantics?
It's hard to find documentation even for what cmpxchg() is meant do, let
alone what barriers is provides, but there does seem to be something
hidden in Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst which suggests full
barrier semantics if the comparison succeeds. I'll replace the
rcu_assign_pointer with a comment saying why it isn't needed.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
>
>> + if (cmpxchg(&old_tbl->future_tbl, NULL, tmp) != NULL)
>> + return -EEXIST;
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
> PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (833 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists