Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 11 Mar 2012 07:56:27 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] Refine mutex and rcu method in module.c, kernel<3.2.9> |
| |
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:26:30PM +0800, Cong Wang wrote: > On 03/09/2012 12:13 AM, Chen, Dennis (SRDC SW) wrote: > >Hi Rusty, > > > >Pls notice the following change in the patch (in set_all_modules_text_ro function): > > > >/* Iterate through all modules and set each module's text as RO */ > >@@ -1693,7 +1699,7 @@ > > { > > struct module *mod; > > > >- mutex_lock(&module_mutex); > >+ rcu_read_lock(); > > list_for_each_entry_rcu(mod,&modules, list) { > > if ((mod->module_core)&& (mod->core_text_size)) { > > set_page_attributes(mod->module_core, > >@@ -1706,7 +1712,7 @@ > > set_memory_ro); > > } > > } > >- mutex_unlock(&module_mutex); > >+ rcu_read_unlock(); > > } > > > >This function just needs to iterate the modules list, but now it holds a unnecessary lock when it does that, > >The other module can't be inserted during this operation, also can you make sure the set_page_attributes will > >run smoothly all the time, if not it's a risk action to hold a lock. > >So summary-- > >I think the idea for kernel module protection is simple: > >Writers to modules, use mutex_lock > >Readers, use rcu. __ALL__ codes here should be with a unified style! This will make our kernel gracefully. > > > >PS: my comments in the patch " /* Concurrent writers for the global modules list are protected by RCU*/" is not right, RCU > >Should be mutex lock. > > I think your change makes sense, I don't know why preempt_disable() > was used, git blame told me the related two commits are 4 > years-old... > > cb2a5205 2008-01-14 00:55:03 -0800 3180 > d72b3751 2008-08-30 10:09:00 +0200 3181 > > maybe at that time rcu was not what it is today... Cc'ing Paul.
I believe that these use either stop-machine or synchronize_sched() for updates, so disabling preemption will work for readers.
Thanx, Paul
| |