[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100406073818.GE11191@laptop>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 17:38:18 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>
Subject: Re: Is module refcounting racy?
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 08:19:23AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mardi 06 avril 2010 à 15:05 +1000, Nick Piggin a écrit :
>
> > Also if anyone else is looking at a way to do _really_ scalable
> > refcounting elsewhere, this could be a good template (I certainly looked
> > here first when trying to get ideas for vfsmount refcounting).
>
> Yes, nice trick Nick, I was thinking about it for network code :)
>
> Acked-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
>
> I confess the smp_wmb() in module_put() bothered me a bit until I saw it
> was only a barrier() on X86 (if !CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE)
Yep. smp_wmb() and smp_rmb() are both noops on x86 (OOSTORE is some
really obscure thing that we don't need to worry about really). On
POWER6/7 CPUs, it uses lwsync which is fairly cheap as well.
I think refcounting in _general_ needs a smp_wmb() (or, to be more
precise, probably a release barrier) before decrements because you don't
want previous futzing with the object to leak into after a final
decrement may be observed by another CPU. So it might be hard to avoid
anyway.
--
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