[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DA7903B.5030508@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:24:27 +0800
From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
CC: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v3 3/4] lib, Make gen_pool memory allocator lockless
On 04/14/2011 05:07 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Huang Ying (ying.huang@...el.com) wrote:
> [...]
>> + * rcu_read_lock and rcu_read_unlock is not used int gen_pool_alloc,
>> + * gen_pool_free, gen_pool_avail and gen_pool_size etc, because chunks
>> + * are only added into pool, not deleted from pool unless the pool
>> + * itself is destroyed. If chunk will be deleted from pool,
>> + * rcu_read_lock and rcu_read_unlock should be uses in these
>> + * functions.
>
> So how do you protect between pool destruction and adding chunks into
> the pool ?
Because the pool itself will be freed when destruction, we need some
mechanism outside of pool. For example, if gen_pool_add() is called via
device file IOCTL, we must un-register the device file first, and
destroy the pool after the last reference to device has gone.
Best Regards,
Huang Ying
--
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