lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Is module refcounting racy?
Date
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 02:25:59 am Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> > I think it can be done racelessly with my patch, which is not really too
> > much overhead. I think if this is considered too much, then we should
> > either fix code and preferably de-export and remove module_refcount from
> > drivers, or remove module removal completely.
>
> I doubt your patch matters too much, but I like it conceptually and it
> seems to be a nice basis for perhaps doing something clever in the long
> run.
>
> [ ie avoiding the stop_machine and instead perhaps doing some optimistic
> thing like "see if we seem to be unused right now, then unregister us,
> and see - after unregistering - that the usage counts haven't increased,
> and re-register if they have. ]

I dislike that we can see spurious failure for some random try_module_get
caller.

But perhaps that's inherent in module removal: someone can miss out, and if
you care, don't try to remove modules.

And grepping for try_module_get() reveals a suspicious (growing) number of
try_module_get(THIS_MODULE) which is almost always wrong. If we're not
perfect, maybe we should aim for simple?

> So I'd like to apply it as a "good improvement, even if module unloading
> which is the only thing that _should_ care deeply should already be under
> stop-machine".
>
> But I'd like an ack or two first.

Yep.

Acked-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>

Cheers,
Rusty.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-04-06 04:41    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans