From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Potential kobject functionality (two stage delete, single delete)
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 07:40:12 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CAB38CC.3060001@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101005135750.GA4414@kroah.com>
On 10/05/2010 06:57 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 06:23:19AM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
>> I've been working on reference counting in my own code, and it
>> seemed to me that some of this stuff would be best added to the
>> generic code - I can't be the only one who's needed to solve these
>> particular problems. But kobjects aren't new, maybe someone knows if
>> any of this has been tried before?
>
> Oh yeah, it's come up lots of times before, see the lkml archives :)
Figures :)
>> void kobject_delete(struct kobject *k)
>> {
>> if (!test_and_set_bit(deleted)) {
>> if (delete_fn)
>> delete_fn(k);
>> kobject_put(k);
>> }
>> }
>
> Every time we have tried to do something like this, it ends up not being
> correct, and missused, so we don't.
Well, past experience is hard to argue with. I'd be curious what
previous implementations looked like, hopefully my google-fu is stronger
this time... I just have a hard time seeing a good reason not do it once
correctly, if previous interfaces were prone to misuse it still ought to
be possible to do it right.
>> The more annoying one is two stage delete. Unless my google-fu has
>> failed me, I don't see a reasonable way of using kobject refcounting
>> if you need to drop a refcount from atomic context.
>
> You can't call kfree from atomic context?
Well, kobject_cleanup() does more than kfree() - thus I don't see how
you'd use kobject_put() in atomic context; it seems to me it wouldn't be
entirely unreasonable to replace kobject_put with a kref_put wrapper
specific to your code, then you could queue up the object somewhere and
run kobject_cleanup() yourself - except kobject_cleanup() is static.
So unless I've completely missed something, you have to use
kobject_put() to free a kobject, but kobject_put() can't be called from
atomic context - at least if the kobject was present in sysfs... perhaps
that's where the confusion comes from? Going over the code again it
looks like kobject_cleanup() doesn't do anything but kfree() if the
kobject wasn't in sysfs.
Anyways, in that case the end result is I need my own refcount so when
it goes to 0 I can do the right thing - the kobject's refcount then
serves no purpose, it's just pointless duplication. Am I making any more
sense now?
> Anyway, code does handle this properly, look at the scsi code for
> example, we have a waitqueue-like infrastructure to do this somewhere,
> perhaps it's within the driver core, I can't remember it this early in
> the morning.
I'm not arguing it can't be done, just would like something cleaner than
what I've got now :)
Grepping around for kobject in drivers/scsi and elsewhere isn't getting
me anything, will see where googling gets me...
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Sorry to have to impose upon your time :) Thanks!
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-05 14:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-05 13:23 [RFC] Potential kobject functionality (two stage delete, single delete) Kent Overstreet
2010-10-05 13:57 ` Greg KH
2010-10-05 14:40 ` Kent Overstreet [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4CAB38CC.3060001@gmail.com \
--to=kent.overstreet@gmail.com \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.