[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060831225828.GB4927@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:58:28 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>
To: Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>, Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>, devel@...nvz.org,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...l.ru>,
Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] introduce atomic_dec_and_lock_irqsave()
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 07:25:07PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
>
> > > > uidhash_lock can be taken from irq context. For example, delayed_put_task_struct()
> > > > does __put_task_struct()->free_uid().
> > >
> > > AFAICT it's called via rcu, does that mean anything released via rcu has
> > > to be protected against interrupts?
> >
> > No. You need protection only if you have are using some
> > data that can also be used by the RCU callback. For example,
> > if your RCU callback just calls kfree(), you don't have to
> > do a spin_lock_bh().
>
> In this case kfree() does its own interrupt synchronization. I didn't
> realize before that rcu had this (IMO serious) limitation. I think there
> should be two call_rcu() variants, one that queues the callback in a soft
> irq and a second which queues it in a thread context.
How about just using synchronize_rcu() in the second situation?
This primitive blocks until the grace period completes, allowing you to
do the remaining processing in thread context. As a bonus, RCU code
that uses synchronize_rcu() is usually quite a bit simpler than code
using call_rcu().
Using synchronize_rcu():
list_del_rcu(p);
synchronize_rcu();
kfree(p);
Using call_rcu():
static void rcu_callback_func(struct rcu_head *rcu)
{
struct foo *p = container_of(rcu, struct foo, rcu);
kfree(p);
}
list_del_rcu(p);
call_rcu(&p->rcu, rcu_callback_func);
Furthermore, the call_rcu() approach requires a struct rcu_head somewhere
in the data structure, so use of synchronize_rcu() saves a bit of memory,
as well.
But if you have a situation where neither synchronize_srcu() nor
call_rcu() is working out for you, let's hear it!
Thanx, Paul
-
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