[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e4822d16-efec-46f1-8f4c-ed68b8e5f27f@kernel.dk>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 11:53:36 -0700
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-aio@...ck.org,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] aio: Convert ioctx_table to XArray
On 12/11/18 11:46 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 12/11/18 11:45 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:41:55AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:35 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> rcu_read_lock();
>>>> - table = rcu_dereference(mm->ioctx_table);
>>>> -
>>>> - if (!table || id >= table->nr)
>>>> - goto out;
>>>> -
>>>> - ctx = rcu_dereference(table->table[id]);
>>>> + ctx = xa_load(&mm->ioctx, id);
>>>> if (ctx && ctx->user_id == ctx_id) {
>>>> if (percpu_ref_tryget_live(&ctx->users))
>>>> ret = ctx;
>>>> }
>>>
>>> Question on this part - do we need that RCU read lock around this now? I
>>> don't think we do.
>>
>> I think we need the rcu read lock here to prevent ctx from being freed
>> under us by free_ioctx().
>
> Then that begs the question, how about __xa_load() that is already called
> under RCU read lock?
Something like this, mem remap has an existing user that can use this
too already.
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists