On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 07:11:52PM +0530, Nilay Shroff wrote:
> On 6/13/24 18:26, Keith Busch wrote:
> > But that's not the problem for the rcu case. It's the last line that's
> > the problem:
> >
> > list->prev->next = list;
> >
> > We can't change forward pointers for any element being detached from
> > @head because a reader iterating the list may see that new pointer value
> > and end up in the wrong list, breaking iteration. A synchronize rcu
> > needs to happen before forward pointers can be mucked with, so it still
> > needs to be done in two steps. Oh bother...
>
> Agree and probably we may break it down using this API:
> static inline void list_cut_rcu(struct list_head *list,
> struct list_head *head, struct list_head *entry,
> void (*sync)(void))
> {
> list->next = entry;
> list->prev = head->prev;
> __list_del(entry->prev, head);
> sync();
> entry->prev = list;
> list->prev->next = list;
> }
Yes, that's the pattern, but I think we need an _srcu() variant: the
"sync" callback needs to know the srcu_struct.
