Re: [RFC PATCH 12/12] samples: Add a cache on RCU pseudo-transactions with a lock per node

[Puranjay Mohan]

On Fri, Oct 16, 2026 at 09:33:19AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
[...]

> +		rcu_read_lock();
> +		e = lru_entry(rcu_txn_list_prev_rcu(&cache_lru.head.node));
> +		if (!e) {
> +			rcu_read_unlock();
> +			rcu_txn_cancel(&txn);
> +			break;
> +		}
> +		if (chances < CACHE_CHANCES && READ_ONCE(e->referenced)) {
> +			WRITE_ONCE(e->referenced, false);
> +			cache_move_front(&txn, e);
> +			chances++;
> +		} else {
> +			evicted = __cache_unlink(&txn, e->key, e, NULL);

I think there's an eviction race here.  cache_lock_entry() re-plans
from e's current links, but doesn't check that e is still the tail.  If
W1 gives e a second chance (clears referenced, moves it to the front)
while W2 has already read e as the tail, W2 then sees referenced
cleared, locks e at the front and evicts the entry W1 just saved.  Only
the policy suffers.  Checking p->next == &cache_lru.head.node for
evictions would close it, but then cache_lock_entry() has to return
false when the check fails rather than retry, or the writer spins until
e is back at the tail.

[...]

> +	atomic_long_inc(&nr_lost);		/* another writer was first */
> +	kfree(new);

Nit: an allocation failure in cache_unlink() or cache_link() also ends
up here, so it's counted as a lost race as well as a failure.

Two more small things, which apply to the mutex sample in patch 11 as
well: a bad lookup (nr_bad) prints the same "the hash table and the list
disagree" as a cache_check() failure, and a kthread_run() failure is
skipped silently, so a run in which no thread started reports no error.

Thanks,
Puranjay