[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 01/26] rculist: introduce list_next_or_null_rr_rcu()
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 5:33 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<> wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 08:16:59AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 6:51 AM Roman Penyaev <
>>> wrote:
>> > No, I continue from the pointer, which I assigned on the previous IO
>> > in order to send IO fairly and keep load balanced.
>> Right. And that's exactly what has both me and Paul nervous. You're no
>> longer in the RCU domain. You're using a pointer where the lifetime has
>> nothing to do with RCU any more.
>> Can it be done? Sure. But you need *other* locking for it (that you haven't
>> explained), and it's fragile as hell.
> He looks to actually have it right, but I would want to see a big comment
> on the read side noting the leak of the pointer and documenting why it
> is OK.

Hi Paul and Linus,

Should I resend current patch with more clear comments about how careful
caller should be with a leaking pointer? Also I will update read side
with a fat comment about "rcu_assign_pointer()" which leaks the pointer
out of RCU domain and what is done to prevent nasty consequences.
Does that sound acceptable?


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-22 11:09    [W:0.197 / U:0.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site