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: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 08:57:29 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100407155729.GA2481@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <24225.1270646561@redhat.com>
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 02:22:41PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > +#define rcu_access_pointer(p, c) \
>
> Why is there a need for 'c'?
An example use is where rcu_access_pointer() is legal because we are
either initializing or cleaning up, so that no other CPU has access
to the pointer. In these cases, you might do something like:
q = rcu_access_pointer(p->a, p->refcnt == 0);
> > +#define rcu_dereference_protect(p, c) \
>
> I'd prefer rcu_dereference_protected(), I think. This macro doesn't protect
> anything. Also, again, why the need for 'c'?
Agreed on rcu_dereference_protected(). I succumbed to a fit of "make
the identifier shorter", please accept my apologies.
> For instance, in:
>
> static struct nfs_delegation *nfs_detach_delegation_locked(struct nfs_inode *nfsi, const nfs4_stateid *stateid)
> {
> struct nfs_delegation *delegation =
> rcu_dereference_protected(nfsi->delegation, ????);
>
> what would be the condition? That the spinlock is held? That's a condition
> for calling the function.
Yep, that the spinlock is held. I agree that it is a bit obvious in
this case, but I have come across a number of RCU uses where the lock
in question was acquired many function calls removed from the access,
and where there other locks were held for other purposes.
> And in:
>
> void nfs_inode_return_delegation_noreclaim(struct inode *inode)
> {
> struct nfs_client *clp = NFS_SERVER(inode)->nfs_client;
> struct nfs_inode *nfsi = NFS_I(inode);
> struct nfs_delegation *delegation;
>
> if (rcu_access_pointer(nfsi->delegation, ????) != NULL) {
>
> what would be the condition here? There's no lock to check - that's the whole
> point of the macro. I also can't give it nfsi->delegation to check as the
> value may change between the two accesses.
I suggest something like the following:
/* protected by double-check lock pattern. */
if (rcu_access_pointer(nfsi->delegation, 1) != NULL) {
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-07 15:57 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
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 [this message]
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=20100407155729.GA2481@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).