[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YXB3n2pxiKYbd2Il@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:10:07 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] percpu_ref: percpu_ref_tryget_live() version holding
RCU
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 09:03:18PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> +/**
> + * percpu_ref_tryget_live_rcu - same as percpu_ref_tryget_live() but the
> + * caller is responsible for taking RCU.
> + *
> + * This function is safe to call as long as @ref is between init and exit.
> + */
> +static inline bool percpu_ref_tryget_live_rcu(struct percpu_ref *ref)
> +{
> + unsigned long __percpu *percpu_count;
> + bool ret = false;
> +
> + if (likely(__ref_is_percpu(ref, &percpu_count))) {
> + this_cpu_inc(*percpu_count);
> + ret = true;
> + } else if (!(ref->percpu_count_ptr & __PERCPU_REF_DEAD)) {
> + ret = atomic_long_inc_not_zero(&ref->data->count);
> + }
> + return ret;
> +}
Can we please add rcu_read_lock_held() assertion? Other than that, looks
fine to me.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists