[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151218131408.GA21756@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 21:14:08 +0800
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: kernel test robot <ying.huang@...ux.intel.com>, lkp@...org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
0day robot <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: rhashtable: Kill harmless RCU warning in rhashtable_walk_init
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 04:54:14AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> You can avoid the comment by using the self documented and lockdep
> enabled primitive
>
> iter->walker->tbl = rcu_dereference_protected(ht->tbl,
> lockdep_is_held(&ht->lock));
That is just gross. I think a comment is much better in this case.
If we were to have more place where ht->lock is taken and we had
to do the RCU dereference on ht->tbl then we could add a helper
for it. For now it's just a single place and I think a comment
is the best way to deal with it.
> But, storing the ht->tbl and then releasing the lock immediately after
> escapes RCU protection.
>
> So why do we store ht->tbl in the first place ?
>
> What exactly prevents it from disappearing after lock is released ?
We add ourselves to the walker list before we release the lock.
The only entity that can destroy ht->tbl will take care of all
walkers before doing so.
Cheers,
--
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
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