[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19192.1269889348@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 20:02:28 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Trond.Myklebust@...app.com,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NFS: Fix RCU warnings in nfs_inode_return_delegation_noreclaim() [ver #2]
Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > spin_lock(&clp->cl_lock);
> > - if (rcu_dereference(nfsi->delegation) != NULL) {
> > + if (nfsi->delegation != NULL) {
>
> And this one. I thought that Trond said that clp->cl_lock protects
> this one, in which case this should work:
>
> if (rcu_dereference_check(nfsi->delegation,
> lockdep_is_held(&clp->cl_lock)) != NULL) {
If clp->cl_lock protects this pointer, why the need for rcu_dereference_check()
at all? The check is redundant since the line above gets the very lock we're
checking for.
> > - if (rcu_dereference(nfsi->delegation) != NULL) {
> > + if (nfsi->delegation != NULL) {
>
> And this one, although the check for cp->cl_lock obviously won't work here.
>
> > spin_lock(&clp->cl_lock);
> > delegation = nfs_detach_delegation_locked(nfsi, NULL);
> > spin_unlock(&clp->cl_lock);
On this one, why does nfsi->delegation need a memory barrier interpolating
afterwards? It has an implicit one in the form of the spin_lock() immediately
after, if the value of the pointer wasn't NULL. What two memory accesses is
the memory barrier ordering?
Ditto on the next one.
David
--
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