On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 09:40:50 -0800
Beau Belgrave <beaub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> No, this is not a fast path, and I don't have a problem moving to a
> mutex if you feel that is better. I've likely become too close to this
> code to know when things are confusing for others.
Yeah. I really dislike the "protection by algorithms" then protection by
locking unless it is a fast path.
If this was a fast path then I'd be more concerned. I dislike global locks
as well, but unless contention becomes a concern, I don't think we should
worry about it.
Also, for this comment:
+static int user_events_release(struct inode *node, struct file *file)
+{
+ struct user_event_refs *refs;
+ struct user_event *user;
+ int i;
+
+ /*
+ * refs is protected by RCU and could in theory change immediately
+ * before this call on another core. To ensure we read the latest
+ * version of refs we acquire the RCU read lock again.
+ */
+ rcu_read_lock_sched();
+ refs = rcu_dereference_sched(file->private_data);
+ rcu_read_unlock_sched();
How do you see refs changing on another core if this can only be called
when nothing has a reference to it?
I think this comment and grabbing the rcu locks is what is causing me
concern.
-- Steve
|