From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Memory barrier question.
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 08:11:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1288419071.2680.648.camel@edumazet-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201010301448.ADJ35414.VOFHtQOJOFLSMF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Le samedi 30 octobre 2010 à 14:48 +0900, Tetsuo Handa a écrit :
> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > For the CPU, let's take it by type of architecture...
> >
> > First, let's get the UP-only architectures out of the way. These would
> > always see their changes in order, so woiuld always see "hello".
>
> Of course.
>
> > Second, let's consider the TSO architectures, including x86, SPARC,
> > PA-RISC, and IBM Mainframe. On these architectures, reads are not
> > reordered by the CPU, so if they see the new pointer, they will also
> > see the new characters -- hence "hello".
>
> Yes.
>
> > Next, let's consider weakly ordered systems that respect dependency
> > ordering (ARM, PowerPC, Itanium). The load of the pointer would
> > always be ordered with respect to any dereference of the pointer,
> > so they would always see "hello".
>
> I'm relieved to hear that.
>
> > This leave DEC Alpha. In this architecture, smp_read_barrier_depends()
> > expands to smp_rmb(), which forces the ordering as required. So
> > Alpha also sees "hello."
>
> Yes.
>
> > I believe that this covers all of the cases.
> >
> > Am I missing anything?
>
> You are right. Regarding list elements, they are appropriately protected.
>
>
>
> Then, what about list heads that are dynamically allocated/initialized?
>
> sruct hashed_word {
> struct list_head list;
> void *key;
> char *buf;
> };
> static struct list_head tables[1u << TABLEBIT];
> static void (*some_callback) (void *);
>
typedef void (*some_callback_t) (void *);
static some_callback_t __rcu *some_callback;
> static void init(void)
> {
> int i;
> /* Initialize the table. */
> for (i = 0; i < (1u << TABLEBIT); i++)
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&tables[i]);
> smp_wmb();
> /* Allow other CPUs to access the table. */
> some_callback = func;
rcu_assign_pointer(some_callback, func);
> }
>
> /*
> * This function is called by
> *
> * if (some_callback)
> * some_callback(some_ptr);
> *
> * rather than
> *
> * func(some_ptr);
well no, see later.
> *
> * .
> */
> static void func(void *some_ptr)
> {
> struct hashed_word *ptr;
> struct list_head *table = &tables[hash_ptr(some_ptr, TABLEBIT)];
> /* We must make sure that readers see table->next != NULL. */
> smp_rmb();
Nope.. delete this
> rcu_read_lock();
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(ptr, table, list) {
> if (ptr->key != some_ptr)
> continue;
> printk("%s\n", ptr->buf);
> break;
> }
> rcu_read_unlock();
> }
>
> How can I make sure INIT_LIST_HEAD() in init() takes effect?
> Is smp_rmb() appropriate?
Please avoid smp_rmb()/smb_wmb() and use RCU api only.
some_callback_t *ptr;
rcu_read_lock();
ptr = rcu_dereference(some_callback);
if (ptr) {
list_for_each_entry_rcu(aux, table, list) {
if (aux->key != ptr)
continue;
printk("%s\n", aux->buf);
break;
}
}
rcu_read_unlock();
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-30 6:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-29 13:23 Tetsuo Handa
2010-10-29 15:09 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-10-30 5:48 ` Tetsuo Handa
2010-10-30 6:11 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2010-10-30 12:40 ` Tetsuo Handa
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-09-20 10:34 memory " George Spelvin
2010-09-15 14:36 Miklos Szeredi
2010-09-15 19:12 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-09-16 11:55 ` David Howells
2010-09-16 13:42 ` Miklos Szeredi
2010-09-16 14:30 ` David Howells
2010-09-16 15:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-09-16 16:06 ` Miklos Szeredi
2010-09-16 16:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-09-16 16:56 ` Miklos Szeredi
2010-09-16 17:09 ` James Bottomley
2010-09-16 17:17 ` Miklos Szeredi
2010-09-16 17:40 ` James Bottomley
2010-09-17 21:49 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-09-17 23:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-09-19 2:47 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-09-19 15:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-09-19 20:15 ` Miklos Szeredi
2010-09-19 21:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-09-20 0:58 ` James Bottomley
2010-09-20 1:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-09-20 16:01 ` Miklos Szeredi
2010-09-20 18:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-09-20 18:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-09-20 20:26 ` Michael Cree
2010-09-20 20:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-09-21 14:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-09-22 18:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-09-18 1:12 ` Alan Cox
2010-09-16 16:50 ` Jamie Lokier
2010-09-16 16:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-16 17:59 ` David Howells
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1288419071.2680.648.camel@edumazet-laptop \
--to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®