From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932319Ab2BATnf (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Feb 2012 14:43:35 -0500 Received: from e7.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.137]:54532 "EHLO e7.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756759Ab2BATnb (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Feb 2012 14:43:31 -0500 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: mingo@elte.hu, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca, josh@joshtriplett.org, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, dhowells@redhat.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, darren@dvhart.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, patches@linaro.org, "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 26/41] rcu: Note that rcu_access_pointer() can be used for teardown Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 11:41:44 -0800 Message-Id: <1328125319-5205-26-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.7.8 In-Reply-To: <1328125319-5205-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20120201194131.GA10028@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1328125319-5205-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12020119-5806-0000-0000-000011F2FF5A Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: "Paul E. McKenney" There is no convenient expression for rcu_deference_protected() when it is used in tearing down multilinked structures following a grace period. For example, suppose that an element containing an RCU-protected pointer to a second element is removed from an enclosing RCU-protected data structure, then the write-side lock is released, and finally synchronize_rcu() is invoked to wait for a grace period. Then it is necessary to traverse the pointer in order to free up the second element. But we are not in an RCU read-side critical section and we are holding no locks, so the usual rcu_dereference_check() and rcu_dereference_protected() primitives are not appropriate. Neither is rcu_dereference_raw(), as it is intended for use in data structures where the user defines the locking design (for example, list_head). So this responsibility is added to rcu_access_pointer()'s list, and this commit updates rcu_assign_pointer()'s header comment accordingly. Suggested-by: David Howells Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney Acked-by: David Howells --- include/linux/rcupdate.h | 7 +++++++ 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h index 6df0ae1..f409529 100644 --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h @@ -484,6 +484,13 @@ static inline void rcu_preempt_sleep_check(void) * NULL. Although rcu_access_pointer() may also be used in cases where * update-side locks prevent the value of the pointer from changing, you * should instead use rcu_dereference_protected() for this use case. + * + * It is also permissible to use rcu_access_pointer() when read-side + * access to the pointer was removed at least one grace period ago, as + * is the case in the context of the RCU callback that is freeing up + * the data, or after a synchronize_rcu() returns. This can be useful + * when tearing down multi-linked structures after a grace period + * has elapsed. */ #define rcu_access_pointer(p) __rcu_access_pointer((p), __rcu) -- 1.7.8