lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jun]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next 19/19] rxrpc: Use RCU to access a peer's service connection tree
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 05:36:51PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > > You want rb_link_node_rcu() here.
> >
> > Should there be an rb_replace_node_rcu() also?
>
> Or I could make rb_replace_node() RCU friendly. What do you think of the
> attached changes (split into appropriate patches)? It's a case of changing
> the order in which pointers are set in the rbtree code and inserting a
> barrier.

> diff --git a/lib/rbtree.c b/lib/rbtree.c
> index 1356454e36de..2b1a190c737c 100644
> --- a/lib/rbtree.c
> +++ b/lib/rbtree.c
> @@ -539,15 +539,17 @@ void rb_replace_node(struct rb_node *victim, struct rb_node *new,
> {
> struct rb_node *parent = rb_parent(victim);
>
> + /* Copy the pointers/colour from the victim to the replacement */
> + *new = *victim;
> +
> /* Set the surrounding nodes to point to the replacement */
> - __rb_change_child(victim, new, parent, root);
> if (victim->rb_left)
> rb_set_parent(victim->rb_left, new);
> if (victim->rb_right)
> rb_set_parent(victim->rb_right, new);
>
> - /* Copy the pointers/colour from the victim to the replacement */
> - *new = *victim;
> + /* Set the onward pointer last with an RCU barrier */
> + __rb_change_child_rcu(victim, new, parent, root);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(rb_replace_node);

So back when I did this work there was resistance to making the regular
RB-tree primitives more expensive for the rare RCU user. And I suspect
that this is still so.

Now, rb_replace_node() isn't a widely used primitive, so it might go
unnoticed, but since we already have rb_link_node_rcu() adding
rb_replace_node_rcu() is the consistent thing to do.


> diff --git a/net/rxrpc/conn_service.c b/net/rxrpc/conn_service.c
> index dc64211c5ee8..298ec300cfcc 100644
> --- a/net/rxrpc/conn_service.c
> +++ b/net/rxrpc/conn_service.c
> @@ -41,14 +41,14 @@ struct rxrpc_connection *rxrpc_find_service_conn_rcu(struct rxrpc_peer *peer,
> */
> read_seqbegin_or_lock(&peer->service_conn_lock, &seq);
>
> - p = peer->service_conns.rb_node;
> + p = rcu_dereference(peer->service_conns.rb_node);
> while (p) {
> conn = rb_entry(p, struct rxrpc_connection, service_node);
>
> if (conn->proto.index_key < k.index_key)
> - p = p->rb_left;
> + p = rcu_dereference(p->rb_left);
> else if (conn->proto.index_key > k.index_key)
> - p = p->rb_right;
> + p = rcu_dereference(p->rb_right);
> else
> goto done;
> conn = NULL;
> @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ rxrpc_publish_service_conn(struct rxrpc_peer *peer,
> goto found_extant_conn;
> }
>
> - rb_link_node(&conn->service_node, parent, pp);
> + rb_link_node_rcu(&conn->service_node, parent, pp);
> rb_insert_color(&conn->service_node, &peer->service_conns);
> conn_published:
> set_bit(RXRPC_CONN_IN_SERVICE_CONNS, &conn->flags);

Yep, that's about right.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-06-30 23:01    [W:0.063 / U:1.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site