Le jeudi 19 janvier 2012 à 04:28 -0800, Tejun Heo a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Interesting, but should be a patch on its own.
>
> Yeap, agreed.
>
> > Maybe other idr users can benefit from your idea as well, if patch is
> > labeled "idr: allow idr_get_next() from rcu_read_lock" or something...
> >
> > I suggest introducing idr_get_next_rcu() helper to make the check about
> > rcu cleaner.
> >
> > idr_get_next_rcu(...)
> > {
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held());
> > return idr_get_next(...);
> > }
>
> Hmmm... I don't know. Does having a separate set of interface help
> much? It's easy to avoid/miss the test by using the other one. If we
> really worry about it, maybe indicating which locking is to be used
> during init is better? We can remember the lockdep map and trigger
> WARN_ON_ONCE() if neither the lock or RCU read lock is held.
There is a rcu_dereference_raw(ptr) in idr_get_next()
This could be changed to rcu_dereference_check(ptr, condition) to get
lockdep support for free :)
[ condition would be the appropriate
lockdep_is_held(&the_lock_protecting_my_idr) or 'I use the rcu variant'
and I hold rcu_read_lock ]
This would need to add a 'condition' parameter to idr_gen_next(), but we
have very few users in kernel at this moment.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>