From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
The approach for mixing RCU and reference counting listed in the RCU
documentation only describes one possible approach. This approach can
result in failure on the read side, which is nice if you want fresh data,
but not so good if you want simple code. This commit therefore adds
two additional approaches that feature unconditional reference-count
acquisition by RCU readers. These approaches are very similar to that
used in the security code.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
Documentation/RCU/rcuref.txt | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/rcuref.txt b/Documentation/RCU/rcuref.txt
index 4202ad0..99ca662 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/rcuref.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/rcuref.txt
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ release_referenced() delete()
{ {
... write_lock(&list_lock);
atomic_dec(&el->rc, relfunc) ...
- ... delete_element
+ ... remove_element
} write_unlock(&list_lock);
...
if (atomic_dec_and_test(&el->rc))
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ release_referenced() delete()
{ {
... spin_lock(&list_lock);
if (atomic_dec_and_test(&el->rc)) ...
- call_rcu(&el->head, el_free); delete_element
+ call_rcu(&el->head, el_free); remove_element
... spin_unlock(&list_lock);
} ...
if (atomic_dec_and_test(&el->rc))
@@ -64,3 +64,60 @@ Sometimes, a reference to the element needs to be obtained
in the
update (write) stream. In such cases, atomic_inc_not_zero() might be
overkill, since we hold the update-side spinlock. One might instead
use atomic_inc() in such cases.
+
+It is not always convenient to deal with "FAIL" in the
+search_and_reference() code path. In such cases, the
+atomic_dec_and_test() may be moved from delete() to el_free()
+as follows:
+
+1. 2.
+add() search_and_reference()
+{ {
+ alloc_object rcu_read_lock();
+ ... search_for_element
+ atomic_set(&el->rc, 1); atomic_inc(&el->rc);
+ spin_lock(&list_lock); ...
+
+ add_element rcu_read_unlock();
+ ... }
+ spin_unlock(&list_lock); 4.
+} delete()
+3. {
+release_referenced() spin_lock(&list_lock);
+{ ...
+ ... remove_element
+ if (atomic_dec_and_test(&el->rc)) spin_unlock(&list_lock);
+ kfree(el); ...
+ ... call_rcu(&el->head, el_free);
+} ...
+5. }
+void el_free(struct rcu_head *rhp)
+{
+ release_referenced();
+}
+
+The key point is that the initial reference added by add() is not removed
+until after a grace period has elapsed following removal. This means that
+search_and_reference() cannot find this element, which means that the value
+of el->rc cannot increase. Thus, once it reaches zero, there are no
+readers that can or ever will be able to reference the element. The
+element can therefore safely be freed. This in turn guarantees that if
+any reader finds the element, that reader may safely acquire a reference
+without checking the value of the reference counter.
+
+In cases where delete() can sleep, synchronize_rcu() can be called from
+delete(), so that el_free() can be subsumed into delete as follows:
+
+4.
+delete()
+{
+ spin_lock(&list_lock);
+ ...
+ remove_element
+ spin_unlock(&list_lock);
+ ...
+ synchronize_rcu();
+ if (atomic_dec_and_test(&el->rc))
+ kfree(el);
+ ...
+}
--
1.7.8
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
