[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:0.039 / U:0.704 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site