[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100504230737.GG2639@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 16:07:37 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, josh@...htriplett.org,
dvhltc@...ibm.com, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
dhowells@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
Christopher Li <sparse@...isli.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 31/48] rcu: define __rcu address space
modifier for sparse
On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 10:58:19PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 May 2010 22:19:41 Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > This patch defines an __rcu annotation that permits sparse to check for
> > correct use of RCU-protected pointers. If a pointer that is annotated
> > with __rcu is accessed directly (as opposed to via rcu_dereference(),
> > rcu_assign_pointer(), or one of their variants), sparse can be made
> > to complain. To enable such complaints, use the new default-disabled
> > CONFIG_SPARSE_RCU_POINTER kernel configuration option. Please note that
> > these sparse complaints are intended to be a debugging aid, -not- a
> > code-style-enforcement mechanism.
>
> To add more background, I was thinking that it might make sense to
> always leave the address space attribute in place but to make part
> part of the checking optional.
>
> The idea would be that we always make sure that an __rcu annotated
> pointer cannot be dereferenced or cast directly, while we would
> only complain about non-annotated pointers being passed to rcu_dereference
> and rcu_assign_pointer if CONFIG_SPARSE_RCU_POINTER is set.
>
> Most of the work I had spent on my tree was about fixing all the
> false positives from that, but more work would be needed to get
> a clean build from it even with the modified CONFIG_SPARSE_RCU_POINTER
> disabled. Since you managed to find the real bugs and fix them,
> your series by itself is probably more useful than the full set
> that I originally had.
Find thus far -- actually fixing the bugs is still on my list. ;-)
> > +/*
> > + * Helper functions for rcu_dereference_check(), rcu_dereference_protected()
> > + * and rcu_assign_pointer(). Some of these could be folded into their
> > + * callers, but they are left separate in order to ease introduction of
> > + * multiple flavors of pointers to match the multiple flavors of RCU
> > + * (e.g., __rcu_bh, * __rcu_sched, and __srcu), should this make sense in
> > + * the future.
> > + */
> > +#define __rcu_access_pointer(p, space) \
> > + ({ \
> > + typeof(*p) *_________p1 = (typeof(*p)*__force )ACCESS_ONCE(p); \
> > + (void) (((typeof (*p) space *)p) == p); \
> > + ((typeof(*p) __force __kernel *)(_________p1)); \
> > + })
>
> Do you have specific plans to add these (__rcu_bh etc) back in the future,
> or do you just want to leave the options open?
No specific plans at the moment. But having the underlying plumbing all
in one place greatly improves the readability.
> Anyway, good to see that you found your way through my patches and got them
> into shape.
Thank -you- for making this happen!!!
Thanx, Paul
--
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