[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DA727D9.3000904@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:59:05 +0200
From: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Milton Miller <miltonm@....com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: synchronize_rcu when unregister_filesystem success
not failure
Il 14/04/2011 17:52, Linus Torvalds ha scritto:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Milton Miller<miltonm@....com> wrote:
>>
>> While checking unregister_filesystem for saftey vs extra calls for
>> "ext4: register ext2 and ext3 alias after ext4" I realized that
>> the synchronize_rcu() was called on the error path but not on
>> the success path.
>
> Good catch.
>
> I think this is the bug that then caused us to do commit d863b50ab013
> ("vfs: call rcu_barrier after ->kill_sb()")
>
> That said, that commit says that "synchronize_rcu()" isn't enough, and
> uses rcu_barrier().
>
> Which _should_ mean that there are no actual users that care about RCU
> events by the time you actually hit "unregister_filesystem()".
>
> So I think your patch is correct, but won't actually matter. But maybe
> I'm missing something.
>
>> Should we call it in both?
>
> No, I think the success path is the one that would matter.
>
> Comments?
>
If I well remember the rcu_barrier was needed for the fs module
unloading problem. In that case synchronize_rcu() wasn't enough. That
said, I agree with you, it won't have any impact.
Marco
--
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