[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190315051029.waqb3ohztl7w6zep@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 13:10:29 +0800
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
Cc: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] rhashtable: use cmpxchg() in nested_table_alloc()
Hi Neil:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 04:05:28PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> nested_table_alloc() relies on the fact that there is
> at most one spinlock allocated for every slot in the top
> level nested table, so it is not possible for two threads
> to try to allocate the same table at the same time.
>
> This assumption is a little fragile (it is not explicit) and is
> unnecessary. We can instead protect against
> a race using cmpxchg() - if it the cmp fails, free the table
> that was just allocated.
>
> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
> ---
> lib/rhashtable.c | 8 +++++---
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
You probably explained it to me before but it's been long enough
that I no longer remember why we need this change. So please
explain in the commit log why this change is needed. Because
on the face of it you are adding locking/sychronisation and not
taking it away.
Thanks,
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists