[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130514152836.GA21972@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 17:28:36 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-aio@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Zach Brown <zab@...hat.com>, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@...e.com>,
Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Asai Thambi S P <asamymuthupa@...ron.com>,
Selvan Mani <smani@...ron.com>,
Sam Bradshaw <sbradshaw@...ron.com>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/21] Generic percpu refcounting
On 05/14, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> > +int percpu_ref_tryget(struct percpu_ref *ref)
> > +{
> > + int ret = 1;
> > +
> > + preempt_disable();
> > +
> > + if (!percpu_ref_dead(ref))
> > + percpu_ref_get(ref);
> > + else
> > + ret = 0;
> > +
> > + preempt_enable();
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
...
> BTW, why is this
> function necessary? What's the use case?
Yes, I was wondering too.
And please note that this code _looks_ wrong, percpu_ref_get() still
can increment ref->count.
Hmm. Just noticed this comment above percpu_ref_kill()
* The caller must issue a synchronize_rcu()/call_rcu() before calling
* percpu_ref_put() to drop the initial ref.
Really?
Oleg.
--
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