[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140611044242.GY4581@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 21:42:42 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>
Cc: Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
"open list:READ-COPY UPDATE..." <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] kernel/rcu/tree.c: correct a check for grace
period in progress
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:23:57AM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> if (rnp->gpnum != rnp->completed ||
> >> - ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->gpnum) != ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->completed)) {
> >> + ACCESS_ONCE(rnp_root->gpnum) != ACCESS_ONCE(rnp_root->completed)) {
> >
> > At this point in the code, we are checking the current rcu_node structure,
> > which might or might not be the root. If it is not the root, we absolutely
> > cannot compare against the root because we don't yet hold the root's lock.
> >
>
> I was a bit thrown by the double checking which is being done
> (rnp->gpnum != rnp->complete) in that if condition. Once without
> ACCESS_ONCE and one with. Is there any particular reason for this?
>
> I now understand that we are comparing ->gpnum and ->completed of the
> root node which might change from under us if we don't hold the root's
> lock. I will keep looking :)
Hmmm... Now that you mention it, that does look a bit strange.
Thanx, Paul
--
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