[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180919080059.GB23172@ming.t460p>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 16:01:01 +0800
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To: "jianchao.wang" <jianchao.w.wang@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] lib/percpu-refcount: introduce percpu_ref_resurge()
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 03:55:07PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 01:19:10PM +0800, jianchao.wang wrote:
> > Hi Ming
> >
> > On 09/18/2018 06:19 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > + unsigned long __percpu *percpu_count;
> > > +
> > > + WARN_ON_ONCE(__ref_is_percpu(ref, &percpu_count));
> > > +
> > > + /* get one extra ref for avoiding race with .release */
> > > + rcu_read_lock_sched();
> > > + atomic_long_add(1, &ref->count);
> > > + rcu_read_unlock_sched();
> > > + }
> >
> > The rcu_read_lock_sched here is redundant. We have been in the critical section
> > of a spin_lock_irqsave.
>
> Right.
>
> >
> > The atomic_long_add(1, &ref->count) may have two result.
> > 1. ref->count > 1
> > it will not drop to zero any more.
> > 2. ref->count == 1
> > it has dropped to zero and .release may be running.
>
> IMO, both the two cases are fine and supported, or do you have other
> concern about this way?
It is too quick, :-)
Yeah, the .release() may be running.
For blk-mq/NVMe's use case, it won't be an issue. We may comment on this
race and let user handle it if it is a problem.
thanks,
Ming
Powered by blists - more mailing lists