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 17:08:32 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100331000832.GQ2513@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <21972.1269993064@redhat.com>
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:51:04AM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > Which it is, as long as the lock is held.
>
> However, in one of the situations I'm thinking of, no lock is held. All that
> is being tested is whether the pointer to some RCU-protected data is either
> NULL or non-NULL. For example:
>
> @@ -345,7 +346,7 @@ int nfs_inode_return_delegation(struct inode *inode)
> struct nfs_delegation *delegation;
> int err = 0;
>
> - if (rcu_dereference(nfsi->delegation) != NULL) {
> + if (nfsi->delegation != NULL) {
> spin_lock(&clp->cl_lock);
> delegation = nfs_detach_delegation_locked(nfsi, NULL);
> spin_unlock(&clp->cl_lock);
>
> No lock - RCU or spinlock - is held over the check of nfsi->delegation - which
> causes lockdep to complain about an unguarded rcu_dereference().
>
> However, the use of rcu_dereference() here is unnecessary with respect to the
> interpolation (where appropriate) of a memory barrier because there is no
> second memory access against which to order.
>
> That said, the memory access is repeated inside nfs_detach_delegation_locked(),
> which again was wrapped in an rcu_dereference():
>
> static struct nfs_delegation *nfs_detach_delegation_locked(struct nfs_inode *nfsi, const nfs4_stateid *stateid)
> {
> - struct nfs_delegation *delegation = rcu_dereference(nfsi->delegation);
> + struct nfs_delegation *delegation = nfsi->delegation;
>
> if (delegation == NULL)
> goto nomatch;
>
> which was not necessary for its memory barrier interpolation properties in this
> case because of the spin_lock() the caller now holds.
>
>
> Your suggestion of using rcu_dereference_check() in both these places would
> result in two unnecessary memory barriers on something like an Alpha CPU.
>
>
> How about:
>
> static struct nfs_delegation *nfs_detach_delegation_locked(struct nfs_inode *nfsi, const nfs4_stateid *stateid)
> {
> struct nfs_delegation *delegation =
> rcu_locked_dereference(nfsi->delegation);
> ...
> }
>
> where rcu_locked_dereference() only does the lockdep magic and the dereference,
> and does not include a memory barrier. The documentation of such a function
> would note this may only be used when the pointer is guarded by an exclusive
> lock to prevent it from changing.
>
> And then:
>
> int nfs_inode_return_delegation(struct inode *inode)
> {
> struct nfs_client *clp = NFS_SERVER(inode)->nfs_client;
> struct nfs_inode *nfsi = NFS_I(inode);
> struct nfs_delegation *delegation;
> int err = 0;
>
> if (rcu_pointer_not_null(nfsi->delegation)) {
> spin_lock(&clp->cl_lock);
> delegation = nfs_detach_delegation_locked(nfsi, NULL);
> spin_unlock(&clp->cl_lock);
> if (delegation != NULL) {
> nfs_msync_inode(inode);
> err = __nfs_inode_return_delegation(inode, delegation, 1);
> }
> }
> return err;
> }
>
> where rcu_pointer_not_null() simply tests the value of the pointer, casting
> away the sparse RCU annotation and not doing the lockdep check and not
> including a barrier. It would not return the value of the pointer, thus
> preventing you from needing the barrier as a result.
How about Eric's suggestion of rcu_dereference_protected()? That name
doesn't imply a lock, which as you say above, isn't always needed to
keep the structure from changing.
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-31 0:09 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
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 [this message]
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=20100331000832.GQ2513@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).