From: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>,
"open list:READ-COPY UPDATE..." <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] kernel/rcu/tree.c: correct a check for grace period in progress
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 14:34:57 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5398A151.4070300@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140611181840.GA26554@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On 06/11/2014 02:18 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 09:42:42PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:23:57AM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Paul E. McKenney
>>> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>> if (rnp->gpnum != rnp->completed ||
>>>>> - ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->gpnum) != ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->completed)) {
>>>>> + ACCESS_ONCE(rnp_root->gpnum) != ACCESS_ONCE(rnp_root->completed)) {
>>>>
>>>> At this point in the code, we are checking the current rcu_node structure,
>>>> which might or might not be the root. If it is not the root, we absolutely
>>>> cannot compare against the root because we don't yet hold the root's lock.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was a bit thrown by the double checking which is being done
>>> (rnp->gpnum != rnp->complete) in that if condition. Once without
>>> ACCESS_ONCE and one with. Is there any particular reason for this?
>>>
>>> I now understand that we are comparing ->gpnum and ->completed of the
>>> root node which might change from under us if we don't hold the root's
>>> lock. I will keep looking :)
>>
>> Hmmm... Now that you mention it, that does look a bit strange.
>
> And it turns out that you were right to begin with! I queue your change,
> but with a full explanation in the commit log and with some additions to
> the comment. Please see below.
>
Awesome! A few more patches on your way :)
--
Pranith
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-11 18:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-11 3:20 [RFC PATCH 1/1] kernel/rcu/tree.c: correct a check for grace period in progress Pranith Kumar
2014-06-11 4:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-11 4:23 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-06-11 4:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-11 18:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-11 18:34 ` Pranith Kumar [this message]
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=5398A151.4070300@gmail.com \
--to=bobby.prani@gmail.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/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