linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
	Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NFS: Fix RCU warnings in nfs_inode_return_delegation_noreclaim() [ver #2]
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:26:36 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100329232636.GT2569@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <26760.1269903543@redhat.com>

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:59:03PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > Only on Alpha.  Otherwise only a volatile access.
> 
> Whilst that is true, it's the principle of the thing.  The extra barrier
> shouldn't be emitted on Alpha.  If Alpha's no longer important, then can we
> scrap smp_read_barrier_depends()?
> 
> My point is that some of these rcu_dereference*()'s are unnecessary.  If
> there're required for correctness tracking purposes, fine; but can we have a
> macro that is just a dummy for the purpose of stripping the pointer Sparse
> annotation?  One that doesn't invoke rcu_dereference_raw() and interpolate a
> barrier, pretend or otherwise, when there's no second reference to order
> against.

Interesting point.  Perhaps an rcu_dereference_update(p, c) for the
cases where the data structure cannot change.  Also, such a name makes
it more clear that this is an update-side access, and it further documents
the update-side lock.

Something like the following, then?  Untested, probably does not even
compile.

							Thanx, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------

rcu: Add update-side variant of rcu_dereference()

Upcoming consistency-checking features are requiring that even update-side
accesses to RCU-protected pointers use some variant of rcu_dereference().
Even though rcu_dereference() is quite lightweight, it does constrain the
compiler, thus producing code that is worse than required.  This patch
therefore adds rcu_dereference_update(), which allows lockdep-style
checks for holding the correct update-side lock, but which does not
constrain the compiler.

Suggested-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---

 rcupdate.h |   17 +++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
index 872a98e..0a6047f 100644
--- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
+++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
@@ -209,9 +209,26 @@ static inline int rcu_read_lock_sched_held(void)
 		rcu_dereference_raw(p); \
 	})
 
+/**
+ * rcu_dereference_update - rcu_dereference on structure that cannot change
+ *
+ * Do rcu_dereference() checking, but just pick up the pointer without
+ * the normal RCU read-side precautions.  These precautions are only
+ * needed if the data structure can change.  The caller is responsible
+ * for doing whatever is necessary (such as holding locks) to prevent
+ * such changes from occurring.
+ */
+#define rcu_dereference_update(p, c) \
+	({ \
+		if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !(c)) \
+			lockdep_rcu_dereference(__FILE__, __LINE__); \
+		(p); \
+	})
+
 #else /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU */
 
 #define rcu_dereference_check(p, c)	rcu_dereference_raw(p)
+#define rcu_dereference_update(p, c)	(p)
 
 #endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU */
 

  reply	other threads:[~2010-03-29 23:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-03-18 13:33 [PATCH] NFS: Fix RCU warnings in nfs_inode_return_delegation_noreclaim() [ver #2] David Howells
2010-03-19  2:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-03-29 19:02 ` David Howells
2010-03-29 19:21   ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-03-29 20:15   ` David Howells
2010-03-29 20:26     ` Eric Dumazet
2010-03-29 21:05     ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-03-29 22:22     ` David Howells
2010-03-29 22:36       ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-03-29 22:59       ` David Howells
2010-03-29 23:26         ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2010-03-30 15:40           ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-03-30 16:39           ` David Howells
2010-03-30 16:49             ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-03-30 17:04               ` Eric Dumazet
2010-03-30 17:25                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-03-30 23:51             ` David Howells
2010-03-31  0:08               ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-03-31 14:04               ` David Howells
2010-03-31 15:16                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-03-31 17:37                 ` David Howells
2010-03-31 18:30                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-03-31 18:32                   ` Eric Dumazet
2010-03-31 22:53                   ` David Howells
2010-04-01  1:29                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-01 11:45                     ` David Howells
2010-04-01 14:39                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-01 14:46                       ` David Howells
2010-04-05 17:57                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-06  9:30                         ` David Howells
2010-04-06 16:14                         ` David Howells
2010-04-06 17:29                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-06 19:34                           ` David Howells
2010-04-07  0:02                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-07 13:22                             ` David Howells
2010-04-07 15:57                               ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-07 16:35                               ` RCU condition checks David Howells
2010-04-07 17:10                                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-11 22:57                                   ` Trond Myklebust
2010-04-12 16:47                                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-03-30 16:37         ` [PATCH] NFS: Fix RCU warnings in nfs_inode_return_delegation_noreclaim() [ver #2] David Howells
2010-03-30 17:01           ` Paul E. McKenney

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=20100329232636.GT2569@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-nfs@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).