[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070920082105.GB2065@ff.dom.local>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:21:05 +0200
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To: Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@...l.net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...ru>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.23-rc6-mm1: IPC: sleeping function called ...
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 09:28:21AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 08:24:58AM +0200, Nadia Derbey wrote:
...
> > Before Calling msg_unlock() they call ipc_rcu_getref() that increments a
> > refcount in the rcu header for the msg structure. This guarantees that
> > the the structure won't be freed before they relock it. Once the
> > structure is relocked by ipc_lock_by_ptr(), they do the symmetric
> > operation i.e. ipc_rcu_putref().
...
> which seems to suggest "out" is an RCU protected pointer, so, I
> thought these refcounts were for something else. But, after looking
> at how it's used it turns out to be ~90% wrong: probably 9 out of 10
> places use refcouning around this, so, these rcu_read_locks() don't
> work here at all. So, probably I miss something again, but IMHO,
> these rcu_read_locks/unlocks could be removed here or in
...
...So I missed it again: after all this RCU protection works before
and after refcounting.
Sorry,
Jarek P.
-
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