lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC] llist: Fix code comments about llist_del_first locking
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Huang, Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
>> Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> writes:
>>
>>> Usage llist_del_first needs lock protection, however the table in the
>>> comments of llist.h show a '-'. Correct this, and also add better
>>> comments on top.
>>>
>>> Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
>>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
>>> Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
>>> ---
>>> include/linux/llist.h | 19 ++++++++++---------
>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/llist.h b/include/linux/llist.h
>>> index fd4ca0b..15e4949 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/llist.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/llist.h
>>> @@ -3,14 +3,15 @@
>>> /*
>>> * Lock-less NULL terminated single linked list
>>> *
>>> - * If there are multiple producers and multiple consumers, llist_add
>>> - * can be used in producers and llist_del_all can be used in
>>> - * consumers. They can work simultaneously without lock. But
>>> - * llist_del_first can not be used here. Because llist_del_first
>>> - * depends on list->first->next does not changed if list->first is not
>>> - * changed during its operation, but llist_del_first, llist_add,
>>> - * llist_add (or llist_del_all, llist_add, llist_add) sequence in
>>> - * another consumer may violate that.
>>> + * If there are multiple producers and multiple consumers, llist_add can be
>>> + * used in producers and llist_del_all can be used in consumers. They can work
>>> + * simultaneously without lock. But llist_del_first will need to use a lock
>>> + * with any other operation (ABA problem). This is because llist_del_first
>>> + * depends on list->first->next not changing but there's no way to be sure
>>> + * about that and the cmpxchg in llist_del_first may succeed if list->first is
>>> + * the same after concurrent operations. For example, a llist_del_first,
>>> + * llist_add, llist_add (or llist_del_all, llist_add, llist_add) sequence in
>>> + * another consumer may cause violations.
>>> *
>>> * If there are multiple producers and one consumer, llist_add can be
>>> * used in producers and llist_del_all or llist_del_first can be used
>>> @@ -19,7 +20,7 @@
>>> * This can be summarized as follow:
>>> *
>>> * | add | del_first | del_all
>>> - * add | - | - | -
>>> + * add | - | L | -
>>
>> If there are only one consumer which only calls llist_del_first(), lock
>> is unnecessary. So '-' is shown here originally. But if there are
>> multiple consumers which call llist_del_first() or llist_del_all(), lock
>> is needed.
>
> I think this needs to be made more clear in the table. The table
> doesn't clear say whether it describes the preceding paragraph
> (multiple producers and one consumer), or if it describes the multiple
> producers and one consumer case. So either we should have 2 tables, or

Sorry, I meant "or if it describes the multiple producer and multiple
consumer case".

Regards,
Joel

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-12-09 01:45    [W:0.054 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site