[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131003211448.GN13318@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 22:14:48 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/17] RCU'd vfsmounts
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 01:52:45PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Yeah, I think we should be guaranteed that, because the
> synchronize_rcu() will guarantee that all other CPU's go through an
> idle period. So the "read A" on CPU2 cannot possibly see a 1 _unless_
> it happens so early that synchronize_rcu() definitely sees it (ie it's
> a "preexisting reader" by definition), in which case synchronize_rcu()
> will be waiting for a subsequent idle period, in which case the B=0 on
> CPU2 is not only guaranteed to happen but also be visible out, so the
> "read B" on CPU1 will see 0. And that's true even if CPU2 doesn't have
> an explicit memory barrier, because the "RCU idle" state implies that
> it has gone through a barrier.
>
> So I don't see how they could possibly see ones. Modulo terminal bugs
> in synchronize_barrier() (which can be very slow, but for umount I
> wouldn't worry). Or modulo my brain being fried.
There's one more place similar to that - kern_unmount(). There we also
go from "longterm vfsmount, mntput() doesn't need to bother checking"
to NULL ->mnt_ns. We can, of course, slap synchronize_rcu() there as
well, but that might make pid_ns and ipc_ns destruction slow...
--
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