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: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 08:40:15 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100330154015.GA8183@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100329232636.GT2569@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 04:26:36PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 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.
Scrap this one -- Arnd has it covered, under the much better name
of rcu_dereference_const().
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 */
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-30 15:40 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
2010-03-30 15:40 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
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=20100330154015.GA8183@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).