lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/21] v6 add lockdep-based diagnostics to rcu_dereference()
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 06:15:59PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 February 2010, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > We would also need something for initialization of structure fields.
> > Does __force work in that case as well?
>
> Yes, it will just need some syntactical sugar to avoid placing __force
> in device drivers.

Very good!

> > > If there are cases where it does not work, we need to come up with
> > > names for new primitives that just do the assignment or dereference
> > > with __force but no actual synchronization.
> >
> > Some data structures are shared by RCU and non-RCU code, with struct
> > list_head being the most prominent example. Making the "next" pointer
> > as __rcu might be OK, but there are a -lot- of non-RCU uses of struct
> > list_head. Would we really want to introduce rcu_dereference() to all
> > non-RCU list-traversal primitives, or do we need to do something else?
>
> I've just started an experimental implementation and got stuck at list rcu.
> The two to deal with it that I can see are
> - ignore list-rcu for now, and make all include/linux/rculist.h __force the
> problem to be ignored.
> - introduce a new struct rcu_list_head that needs to be used for list rcu.
>
> A nicer option might be if sparse would let you write
> 'struct list_head __rcu head' and interpret that as having the pointers
> inside it annotated as __rcu.

Only the "next" pointer, not the "prev" pointer, but yes.

Perhaps it would be best to see if the sparse guys are willing to take
this on?

Thanx, Paul


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-02-23 19:03    [W:2.972 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site