lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH tip/core/rcu 26/47] rcu: Note that rcu_access_pointer() can be used for teardown
Date
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

There is no convenient expression for rcu_deference_protected()
when it is used in tearing down multilinked structures following
a grace period. For example, suppose that an element containing an
RCU-protected pointer to a second element is removed from an enclosing
RCU-protected data structure, then the write-side lock is released,
and finally synchronize_rcu() is invoked to wait for a grace period.
Then it is necessary to traverse the pointer in order to free up the
second element. But we are not in an RCU read-side critical section
and we are holding no locks, so the usual rcu_dereference_check() and
rcu_dereference_protected() primitives are not appropriate. Neither
is rcu_dereference_raw(), as it is intended for use in data structures
where the user defines the locking design (for example, list_head).

So this responsibility is added to rcu_access_pointer()'s list, and
this commit updates rcu_assign_pointer()'s header comment accordingly.

Suggested-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
---
include/linux/rcupdate.h | 7 +++++++
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
index 6df0ae1..f409529 100644
--- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
+++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
@@ -484,6 +484,13 @@ static inline void rcu_preempt_sleep_check(void)
* NULL. Although rcu_access_pointer() may also be used in cases where
* update-side locks prevent the value of the pointer from changing, you
* should instead use rcu_dereference_protected() for this use case.
+ *
+ * It is also permissible to use rcu_access_pointer() when read-side
+ * access to the pointer was removed at least one grace period ago, as
+ * is the case in the context of the RCU callback that is freeing up
+ * the data, or after a synchronize_rcu() returns. This can be useful
+ * when tearing down multi-linked structures after a grace period
+ * has elapsed.
*/
#define rcu_access_pointer(p) __rcu_access_pointer((p), __rcu)

--
1.7.8


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-04 02:59    [W:0.199 / U:10.852 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site