From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch net] rds: mark bound socket with SOCK_RCU_FREE
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 20:24:23 -0400
Message-ID: <20180911002423.GL4668@oracle.com>
References: <20180910222422.19470-1-xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
 <b1492126-c413-45d8-0e11-ff15151f108a@oracle.com>
 <20180910233007.GJ4668@oracle.com>
 <CAM_iQpUAGvFOw4_1PxM2wmQ_ZQMsgYSdDkWwfPD25-iX7i134w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180911000437.GK4668@oracle.com>
 <CAM_iQpXcydKdTyT25F5Bbk7y9BMJLTKMT42o3J0bbuodjXjetA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        rds-devel@oss.oracle.com
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from userp2120.oracle.com ([156.151.31.85]:59894 "EHLO
        userp2120.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1725945AbeIKFVB (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 11 Sep 2018 01:21:01 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAM_iQpXcydKdTyT25F5Bbk7y9BMJLTKMT42o3J0bbuodjXjetA@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On (09/10/18 17:16), Cong Wang wrote:
> >
> > On (09/10/18 16:51), Cong Wang wrote:
> > >
> > >         __rds_create_bind_key(key, addr, port, scope_id);
> > > -       rs = rhashtable_lookup_fast(&bind_hash_table, key, ht_parms);
> > > +       rcu_read_lock();
> > > +       rs = rhashtable_lookup(&bind_hash_table, key, ht_parms);
> > >         if (rs && !sock_flag(rds_rs_to_sk(rs), SOCK_DEAD))
> > >                 rds_sock_addref(rs);
> > >         else
> > >                 rs = NULL;
> > > +       rcu_read_unlock();
> >
> > aiui, the rcu_read lock/unlock is only useful if the write
> > side doing destructive operations  does something to make sure readers
> > are done before doing the destructive opertion. AFAIK, that does
> > not exist for rds socket management today
> 
> That is exactly why we need it here, right?

Maybe I am confused, what exactly is the patch you are proposing?

Does it have the SOCK_RCU_FREE change? 
Does it have the rcu_read_lock you have above? 
Where is the call_rcu?

> Hmm, so you are saying synchronize_rcu() is kinda more correct
> than call_rcu()??  


I'm not saying that, I'm asking "what exactly is the patch
you are proposing?" The only one on record is 
   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/968282/
which does not have either synchronize_rcu or call_rcu.

> I never hear this before, would like to know why.

Please post precise patches first.

Thanks.