Re: [PATCH] NFS: Fix RCU warnings innfs_inode_return_delegation_noreclaim() [ver #2]
From: Paul E. McKenney
Date: Tue Apr 06 2010 - 13:29:56 EST
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 05:14:03PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > So you have objected to needless memory barriers. How do you feel
> > > > about possibly needless ACCESS_ONCE() calls?
> > >
> > > That would work here since it shouldn't emit any excess instructions.
> > And here is the corresponding patch. Seem reasonable?
> Actually, now I've thought about it some more. No, it's not reasonable.
> You've written:
> This patch adds a variant of rcu_dereference() that handles situations
> where the RCU-protected data structure cannot change, perhaps due to
> our holding the update-side lock, or where the RCU-protected pointer is
> only to be tested, not dereferenced.
> But if we hold the update-side lock, then why should we be forced to use
> In fact, if we don't hold the lock, but we want to test the pointer twice in
> succession, why should we be required to use ACCESS_LOCK()?
OK, just to make sure I understand you... You are asking for two additional
RCU API members:
1. rcu_access_pointer() or some such that includes ACCESS_ONCE(),
but not smp_read_barrier_depends(), which may be used when
we are simply examining the value of the RCU-protected pointer
(as in the NFS case). It could also be used when the
appropriate update-side lock is held, but for that we have:
2. rcu_dereference_protected() or some such that includes neither
ACCESS_ONCE() nor smp_read_barrier_depends(), and that may
only be used if updates are prevented, for example, by holding
the appropriate update-side lock.
Does this fit?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/