[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171013145855.GB23154@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 16:58:55 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>, Gargi Sharma <gs051095@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, julia.lawall@...6.fr,
mingo@...nel.org, pasha.tatashin@...cle.com, ktkhai@...tuozzo.com,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, hch@...radead.org, lkp@...el.com,
tony.luck@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] pid: Replace pid bitmap implementation with IDR
API
On 10/12, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:54:32 -0400 Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com> wrote:
>
> > Documenting the locking on all the existing code, plus the
> > new code, seems a little out of scope of an Outreachy
> > internship...
>
> I'm not referring to all the existing code! Just this new
> pid_namespace.idr's locking. If it was protected by
> spin_lock_irq(&pidmap_lock) everywhere then an explanation wouldn't be
> needed. But we have this oddball site where pidmap_lock isn't taken
> but it uses rcu_read_lock() which is surprising to say the least.
> Readers could be forgiven for thinking that is a bug.
Actually this all looks simple, or I missed something...
pid_namespace.idr is protected by pidmap_lock, it is always modified
with this lock held.
idr_find/idr_find_ext/etc can be called under rcu_read_lock() simply
because idr/radix_tree is rcu-safe and this is already documented in
idr.h, say, the comment above idr_find() says
* This function can be called under rcu_read_lock(), given that the leaf
* pointers lifetimes are correctly managed.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists