Re: [PATCH 2/2] IB/mad: Use IDR for agent IDs

[jackm]

On Fri,  8 Jun 2018 10:42:18 -0700
Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> +		rcu_read_lock();
> +		mad_agent = idr_find(&ib_mad_clients, hi_tid);
> +		if (mad_agent
> && !atomic_inc_not_zero(&mad_agent->refcount))
> +			mad_agent = NULL;
> +		rcu_read_unlock();

Hi Matthew,

I don't see the flow which can explain using atomic_inc_not_zero() here.

The refcount will go to zero only when unregister_mad_agent() is
called (code below, see asterisks):
        idr_lock(&ib_mad_clients);
 ***    idr_remove(&ib_mad_clients, mad_agent_priv->agent.hi_tid);
        idr_unlock(&ib_mad_clients);

        flush_workqueue(port_priv->wq);
        ib_cancel_rmpp_recvs(mad_agent_priv);

 ***    deref_mad_agent(mad_agent_priv);
		[JPM] The call to idr_find in the interrupt context
		would need to occur here for the refcount to have a
		possibility of being zero.
		Shouldn't idr_find in the interrupt context fail, since
		idr_remove has already been invoked?
	wait_for_completion(&mad_agent_priv->comp);

The refcount will be able to go to zero only after deref_mad_agent is
called above.  Before this, however, idr_remove() has been called --
so, if my understanding is correct, the idr_find call in
find_mad_agent() should not succeed since the refcount can get to zero
only AFTER the idr_remove call.

Could you please explain the flow which can result in idr_find
succeeding (in the interrupt context) after idr_remove has been invoked
(in the process context)?  Will idr_find succeed even after
idr_remove, and only fail after kfree_rcu is invoked as well? (or,
maybe after some garbage-collection delay?)

Thx!

-Jack