On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 08:36:44AM -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 07:11:52PM +0530, Nilay Shroff wrote:
> > On 6/13/24 18:26, Keith Busch wrote:
> > > But that's not the problem for the rcu case. It's the last line that's
> > > the problem:
> > >
> > > list->prev->next = list;
> > >
> > > We can't change forward pointers for any element being detached from
> > > @head because a reader iterating the list may see that new pointer value
> > > and end up in the wrong list, breaking iteration. A synchronize rcu
> > > needs to happen before forward pointers can be mucked with, so it still
> > > needs to be done in two steps. Oh bother...
> >
> > Agree and probably we may break it down using this API:
> > static inline void list_cut_rcu(struct list_head *list,
> > struct list_head *head, struct list_head *entry,
> > void (*sync)(void))
> > {
> > list->next = entry;
> > list->prev = head->prev;
> > __list_del(entry->prev, head);
> > sync();
> > entry->prev = list;
> > list->prev->next = list;
> > }
>
> Yes, that's the pattern, but I think we need an _srcu() variant: the
> "sync" callback needs to know the srcu_struct.
Just make a helper function like this:
static void my_synchronize_srcu(void)
{
synchronize_srcu(&my_srcu_struct);
}
Or am I missing something subtle here?
Thanx, Paul
