lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] NFS: Fix RCU warnings in nfs_inode_return_delegation_noreclaim() [ver #2]
Date
Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> > > So you have objected to needless memory barriers. How do you feel
> > > about possibly needless ACCESS_ONCE() calls?
> >
> > That would work here since it shouldn't emit any excess instructions.
>
> And here is the corresponding patch. Seem reasonable?

Actually, now I've thought about it some more. No, it's not reasonable.
You've written:

This patch adds a variant of rcu_dereference() that handles situations
where the RCU-protected data structure cannot change, perhaps due to
our holding the update-side lock, or where the RCU-protected pointer is
only to be tested, not dereferenced.

But if we hold the update-side lock, then why should we be forced to use
ACCESS_ONCE()?

In fact, if we don't hold the lock, but we want to test the pointer twice in
succession, why should we be required to use ACCESS_LOCK()?

David


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-04-06 18:17    [W:0.210 / U:0.884 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site