Re: Is module refcounting racy?

From: Nick Piggin
Date: Tue Apr 06 2010 - 03:38:35 EST

On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 08:19:23AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mardi 06 avril 2010 à 15:05 +1000, Nick Piggin a écrit :
> > Also if anyone else is looking at a way to do _really_ scalable
> > refcounting elsewhere, this could be a good template (I certainly looked
> > here first when trying to get ideas for vfsmount refcounting).
> Yes, nice trick Nick, I was thinking about it for network code :)
> Acked-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx>
> I confess the smp_wmb() in module_put() bothered me a bit until I saw it
> was only a barrier() on X86 (if !CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE)

Yep. smp_wmb() and smp_rmb() are both noops on x86 (OOSTORE is some
really obscure thing that we don't need to worry about really). On
POWER6/7 CPUs, it uses lwsync which is fairly cheap as well.

I think refcounting in _general_ needs a smp_wmb() (or, to be more
precise, probably a release barrier) before decrements because you don't
want previous futzing with the object to leak into after a final
decrement may be observed by another CPU. So it might be hard to avoid

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at