[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080829212330.GC26610@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:23:30 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...l.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove stop_machine during module load
Hi Paul,
Thanks for the excellent review.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 01:44:57PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> OK, what about the read side? Not so good for __unlink_module() to yank
That's independent from my patch isn't it? I don't think I'm changing
anything here. All of the issues you're pointing out are already
in the code (except for the missing read_barrier_depends() perhaps)
I think the lockless users like oops or sysrq-t typically have preemption
disabled, so they should be ok regarding that.
> the module out from under a reader. Therefore, all readers must either
> disable interrupts to block stop_machine() or must hold some sort of
> mutex that prevents modules from being unloaded.
>
> First, where the heck -is- the read side...
>
> o each_symbol() needs its list_for_each_entry() to become
> list_for_each_entry_rcu() and needs local_irq_disable()
Ah that's needed for the Alpha barrier depends semantics,
right?
> Yet another approach would be to use call_rcu() to defer the
> various kfree() &c calls later in free_module.
I think that would be a the better approach.
-Andi
--
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