[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121129011203.GC15094@google.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 17:12:03 -0800
From: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>
To: Zach Brown <zab@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, bcrl@...ck.org, jmoyer@...hat.com,
axboe@...nel.dk, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/25] aio: Refcounting cleanup
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 04:17:59PM -0800, Zach Brown wrote:
>
> > struct kioctx {
> > atomic_t users;
> > - int dead;
> > + atomic_t dead;
>
> Do we want to be paranoid and atomic_set() that to 0 when the ioctx is
> allocated?
I suppose we should, yeah.
> > + while (!list_empty(&ctx->active_reqs)) {
> > + struct list_head *pos = ctx->active_reqs.next;
> > + struct kiocb *iocb = list_kiocb(pos);
>
> I'd use list_first_entry() and ignore the list_kiocb() wrapper, I think.
Fine by me.
>
> > + if (!atomic_xchg(&ctx->dead, 1)) {
> > + hlist_del_rcu(&ctx->list);
> > + synchronize_rcu();
>
> > + hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(ctx, n, &mm->ioctx_list, list)
> > + if (ctx->user_id == ctx_id){
> > + BUG_ON(atomic_read(&ctx->dead));
>
> Hmm. Won't it be possible to race lookup and io_destroy() to hit this
> BUG?
Ouch, yes. Dunno what I was thinking when I added that.
--
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