On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 09:57:12PM +0800, Alan Huang wrote:
[...]
> >
> > I think you're right. (Although the node will be eventually deleted at
> > cleanup_hazptr_context(), however there could be a long-live
> > hazptr_context). It should be:
> >
> > hazptr_t val = smp_load_acquire(&hzcp->slots[i]);
> > struct hazptr_slot_snap *snap = &hzcp->snaps[i];
> >
> > if (val != snap->slot) { // val changed, need to update the tree node.
> > // Already in the tree, need to remove first.
> > if (!is_null_or_unused(snap->slot)) {
> > reader_del(tree, snap);
> > }
> >
> > // use the latest snapshot.
> > snap->slot = val;
> >
> > // Add it into tree if there is a reader
> > if (!is_null_or_unused(val))
> > reader_add(tree, snap);
> > }
>
> It seems like that two different hazptr_context can’t be used to protect the same pointer?
>
> Otherwise the following can happen?
>
> thread1 thread2 thread3(worker) thread4
> hazptr_tryprotect(hzp1, ptr1) hazptr_tryprotect(hzp2, ptr1)
> add ptr1 to tree
Note that we have snapshot rb_node for each hazard pointer slot, so here
thread3 actually would add two rb_nodes with ->slot == ptr1 here.
> hazptr_clear(hzp1)
> hazptr_tryprotect(hzp1, ptr2)
> delete ptr1 from tree unpub ptr1
Therefore, there is still one rb_node with ->slot == ptr1 in the tree
after the deletion, so updaters won't invoke ptr1's callback.
Regards,
Boqun
> call_hazptr(ptr1)
> oops: invoke ptr1's callback
> Or am I missing something?
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Boqun
> >
> >> I'm not so sure...
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Lai
>
>
