Re: An incorrect assumption over radix_tree_tag_get()

[Dave Chinner]

On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 03:09:03AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 05:19:49PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I think I've made a bad assumption over my usage of radix_tree_tag_get() in
> > fs/fscache/page.c.
> > 
> > I've assumed that radix_tree_tag_get() is protected from radix_tree_tag_set()
> > and radix_tree_tag_clear() by the RCU read lock.  However, now I'm not so
> > sure.  I think it's only protected against removal of part of the tree.
> > 
> > Can you confirm?
> 
> It is safe. Synchronization requirements for using the radix tree API
> are documented.

I don't think it is safe - I made modifications to XFS that modified
radix tree tags under a read lock (not RCU), but this resulted in
corrupted tag state as concurrent tag set/clear operations for
different slots propagated through the tree and got mixed up.
Christoph fixed the problem (f1f724e4b523d444c5a598d74505aefa3d6844d2)
by putting all tag modifications under the write lock.  I can't see
how doing tag modifications under RCU read locks is any safer than
doing it under a spinning read lock....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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/