Re: [PATCH 3/4] rhashtable: use bit_spin_locks to protect hash bucket.
Date: Tue Mar 26 2019 - 21:05:26 EST
On Tue, Mar 26 2019, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 04:05:39PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
>> + * Sometimes we unlock a bucket by writing a new pointer there. In that
>> + * case we don't need to unlock, but we do need to reset state such as
>> + * local_bh. For that we have rht_unlocked(). This doesn't include
>> + * the memory barrier that bit_spin_unlock() provides, but rcu_assign_pointer()
>> + * will have provided that.
> Hmm, are you sure that's enough? IIRC rcu_assign_pointer only
> provides a write barrier compared to the more complete (but one-way)
> barrier that a spin-lock provides.
The bit_spin_unlock(), which I am avoiding as unnecessary, would have
provided release semantics.
i.e. any write by this CPU that happened before the releasing write
will be visible to other CPUs before (or when) they see the result of
the releasing write.
This is (as I understand it) exactly that rcu_assign_pointer() promises
- even before acquire semantics were added as Paul just reported.
So yes, I am sure (surer now that I've walked through it carefully).
Description: PGP signature