[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <23274.1269893706@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:15:06 +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:
> > > 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.
>
> Because Arnd Bergmann is working on a set of patches that makes sparse
> complain if you access an RCU-protected pointer directly, without using
> some flavor of rcu_dereference().
>
> So your approach would work for the moment, but would need another
> change, probably in the 2.6.35 timeframe.
My objection to using rcu_dereference_check() here is that it's a dynamic
check: the compiler emits code to do it, since the lock/unlock status of what
the pointer points to cannot be determined easily at compiler time - and then
the barrier is interpolated anyway unnecessarily.
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