[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140509195522.GF4486@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 15:55:22 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH percpu/for-3.16 2/2] percpu-refcount: implement
percpu_ref_tryget()
Hello,
On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 12:51:09PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> Well not so much deprecated as "bad, avoid" - IMO using tryget() almost always
> (I haven't seen a convincing counterexample) means you screwed up your
> refcounting somewhere, if you need to take a ref on something whatever made that
> object visible to you should have its own ref.
>
> (I think we had this debate, but that was awhile ago...)
Oh sure, tryget can definitely be misunderstood but RCU protected
iteration is one valid use case.
rcu_read_lock();
locate the object of interest;
tryget[_live]() depending on the use case;
rcu_read_unlock();
access the object.
It's not different from why we use atomic_inc_not_zero() in some
places. The only difference is that percpu_ref distinguishes live
vs. dying states. It's true that this can be used in pretty stupid
ways but I think the comments are pretty clear on that. Do you think
we need more warning there?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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