On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 03:03:48PM +0200, Roman Pen wrote:
> Function is going to be used in transport over RDMA module
> in subsequent patches.
>
> Function returns next element in round-robin fashion,
> i.e. head will be skipped. NULL will be returned if list
> is observed as empty.
>
> Signed-off-by: Roman Pen <roman.penyaev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ---
> include/linux/rculist.h | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/rculist.h b/include/linux/rculist.h
> index 127f534fec94..b0840d5ab25a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rculist.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rculist.h
> @@ -339,6 +339,25 @@ static inline void list_splice_tail_init_rcu(struct list_head *list,
> })
>
> /**
> + * list_next_or_null_rr_rcu - get next list element in round-robin fashion.
> + * @head: the head for the list.
> + * @ptr: the list head to take the next element from.
> + * @type: the type of the struct this is embedded in.
> + * @memb: the name of the list_head within the struct.
> + *
> + * Next element returned in round-robin fashion, i.e. head will be skipped,
> + * but if list is observed as empty, NULL will be returned.
> + *
> + * This primitive may safely run concurrently with the _rcu list-mutation
> + * primitives such as list_add_rcu() as long as it's guarded by rcu_read_lock().
Of course, all the set of list_next_or_null_rr_rcu() invocations that
are round-robining a given list must all be under the same RCU read-side
critical section. For example, the following will break badly:
struct foo *take_rr_step(struct list_head *head, struct foo *ptr)
{
struct foo *ret;
rcu_read_lock();
ret = list_next_or_null_rr_rcu(head, ptr, struct foo, foolist);
rcu_read_unlock(); /* BUG */
return ret;
}
You need a big fat comment stating this, at the very least. The resulting
bug can be very hard to trigger and even harder to debug.
And yes, I know that the same restriction applies to list_next_rcu()
and friends. The difference is that if you try to invoke those in an
infinite loop, you will be rapped on the knuckles as soon as you hit
the list header. Without that knuckle-rapping, RCU CPU stall warnings
might tempt people to do something broken like take_rr_step() above.
Is it possible to instead do some sort of list_for_each_entry_rcu()-like
macro that makes it more obvious that the whole thing need to be under
a single RCU read-side critical section? Such a macro would of course be
an infinite loop if the list never went empty, so presumably there would
be a break or return statement in there somewhere.
> + */
> +#define list_next_or_null_rr_rcu(head, ptr, type, memb) \
> +({ \
> + list_next_or_null_rcu(head, ptr, type, memb) ?: \
> + list_next_or_null_rcu(head, READ_ONCE((ptr)->next), type, memb); \
Are there any uses for this outside of RDMA? If not, I am with Linus.
Define this within RDMA, where a smaller number of people can more
easily be kept aware of the restrictions on use. If it turns out to be
more generally useful, we can take a look at exactly what makes sense
more globally.
Even within RDMA, I strongly recommend the big fat comment called out above.
And the list_for_each_entry_rcu()-like formulation, if that can be made to
work within RDMA's code structure.
Seem reasonable, or am I missing something here?
Thanx, Paul
> +})
> +
> +/**
> * list_for_each_entry_rcu - iterate over rcu list of given type
> * @pos: the type * to use as a loop cursor.
> * @head: the head for your list.
> --
> 2.13.1
>
