[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2E1EB2CF9ED1CB4AA966F0EB76EAB4430B47FD2C@SACMVEXC2-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 07:41:55 -0700
From: "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
To: "Jeff Layton" <jlayton@...hat.com>,
"Stanislav Kinsbursky" <skinsbursky@...allels.com>
Cc: <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
"Pavel Emelianov" <xemul@...allels.com>, <neilb@...e.de>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<bfields@...ldses.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 1/8] SUNRPC: introduce helpers for reference counted rpcbind clients
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Layton [mailto:jlayton@...hat.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:25 AM
> To: Stanislav Kinsbursky
> Cc: Myklebust, Trond; linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org; Pavel Emelianov;
> neilb@...e.de; netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> bfields@...ldses.org; davem@...emloft.net
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] SUNRPC: introduce helpers for reference
> counted rpcbind clients
>
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:49:27 +0400
> Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@...allels.com> wrote:
>
> > v5: fixed races with rpcb_users in rpcb_get_local()
> >
> > This helpers will be used for dynamical creation and destruction of
> > rpcbind clients.
> > Variable rpcb_users is actually a counter of lauched RPC services.
If
> > rpcbind clients has been created already, then we just increase
rpcb_users.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@...allels.com>
> >
> > ---
> > net/sunrpc/rpcb_clnt.c | 53
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/sunrpc/rpcb_clnt.c b/net/sunrpc/rpcb_clnt.c index
> > e45d2fb..5f4a406 100644
> > --- a/net/sunrpc/rpcb_clnt.c
> > +++ b/net/sunrpc/rpcb_clnt.c
> > @@ -114,6 +114,9 @@ static struct rpc_program rpcb_program;
> > static struct rpc_clnt * rpcb_local_clnt;
> > static struct rpc_clnt * rpcb_local_clnt4;
> > +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(rpcb_clnt_lock);
> > +unsigned int rpcb_users;
> > +
> > struct rpcbind_args {
> > struct rpc_xprt * r_xprt;
> > @@ -161,6 +164,56 @@ static void rpcb_map_release(void *data)
> > kfree(map);
> > }
> > +static int rpcb_get_local(void)
> > +{
> > + int cnt;
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&rpcb_clnt_lock);
> > + if (rpcb_users)
> > + rpcb_users++;
> > + cnt = rpcb_users;
> > + spin_unlock(&rpcb_clnt_lock);
> > +
> > + return cnt;
> > +}
> > +
> > +void rpcb_put_local(void)
> > +{
> > + struct rpc_clnt *clnt = rpcb_local_clnt;
> > + struct rpc_clnt *clnt4 = rpcb_local_clnt4;
> > + int shutdown;
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&rpcb_clnt_lock);
> > + if (--rpcb_users == 0) {
> > + rpcb_local_clnt = NULL;
> > + rpcb_local_clnt4 = NULL;
> > + }
>
> In the function below, you mention that the above pointers are
protected by
> rpcb_create_local_mutex, but it looks like they get reset here without
that
> being held?
>
> Might it be simpler to just protect rpcb_users with the
> rpcb_create_local_mutex and ensure that it's held whenever you call
one of
> these routines? None of these are codepaths are particularly hot.
Alternatively, if you do
if (rpcb_users == 1) {
rpcb_local_clnt = NULL;
rpcb_local_clnt4 = NULL;
smp_wmb();
rpcb_users = 0;
} else
rpcb_users--;
then the spinlock protection in rpbc_get_local() is still good enough to
guarantee correctness.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists