[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Is module refcounting racy?
    On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 08:19:23AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
    > Le mardi 06 avril 2010 à 15:05 +1000, Nick Piggin a écrit :
    > > Also if anyone else is looking at a way to do _really_ scalable
    > > refcounting elsewhere, this could be a good template (I certainly looked
    > > here first when trying to get ideas for vfsmount refcounting).
    > Yes, nice trick Nick, I was thinking about it for network code :)
    > Acked-by: Eric Dumazet <>
    > I confess the smp_wmb() in module_put() bothered me a bit until I saw it
    > was only a barrier() on X86 (if !CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE)

    Yep. smp_wmb() and smp_rmb() are both noops on x86 (OOSTORE is some
    really obscure thing that we don't need to worry about really). On
    POWER6/7 CPUs, it uses lwsync which is fairly cheap as well.

    I think refcounting in _general_ needs a smp_wmb() (or, to be more
    precise, probably a release barrier) before decrements because you don't
    want previous futzing with the object to leak into after a final
    decrement may be observed by another CPU. So it might be hard to avoid

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-04-06 09:41    [W:0.021 / U:53.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site