[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160217160218.GG6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:02:18 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] lib/percpu-list: Per-cpu list with associated
per-cpu locks
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:56:10AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>+/**
> >>+ * for_all_percpu_list_entries - iterate over all the per-cpu list with locking
> >>+ * @pos: the type * to use as a loop cursor for the current .
> >>+ * @next: an internal type * variable pointing to the next entry
> >>+ * @pchead: an internal struct list * of percpu list head
> >>+ * @pclock: an internal variable for the current per-cpu spinlock
> >>+ * @head: the head of the per-cpu list
> >>+ * @member: the name of the per-cpu list within the struct
> >>+ */
> >>+#define for_all_percpu_list_entries(pos, next, pchead, pclock, head, member)\
> >>+ { \
> >>+ int cpu; \
> >>+ for_each_possible_cpu (cpu) { \
> >>+ typeof(*pos) *next; \
> >>+ spinlock_t *pclock = per_cpu_ptr(&(head)->lock, cpu); \
> >>+ struct list_head *pchead =&per_cpu_ptr(head, cpu)->list;\
> >>+ spin_lock(pclock); \
> >>+ list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, next, pchead, member.list)
> >>+
> >>+#define end_all_percpu_list_entries(pclock) spin_unlock(pclock); } }
> I will try to shorten the name and better document the macro. This is
> probably the most tricky part of the whole part.
Note that your use of _safe() here actually makes the usage in
iterate_bdevs() unsafe!
Because that function relies on __iget() pinning the current position,
which means that once you re-acquire the list lock, pos->next is valid.
Howveer, _safe() takes pos->next before dropping the lock, and that
object is not actually pinned and can go away.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists