+ rbtree-clarify-documentation-of-rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe.patch added to -mm tree

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



The patch titled
     Subject: rbtree: clarify documentation of rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe()
has been added to the -mm tree.  Its filename is
     rbtree-clarify-documentation-of-rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe.patch

This patch should soon appear at
    http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/rbtree-clarify-documentation-of-rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe.patch
and later at
    http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/rbtree-clarify-documentation-of-rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe.patch

Before you just go and hit "reply", please:
   a) Consider who else should be cc'ed
   b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well
   c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a
      reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's

*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***

The -mm tree is included into linux-next and is updated
there every 3-4 working days

------------------------------------------------------
From: Cody P Schafer <dev@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: rbtree: clarify documentation of rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe()

I noticed that commit a20135ffbc44 ("writeback: don't drain
bdi_writeback_congested on bdi destruction") added a usage of
rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe() in mm/backing-dev.c which appears
to try to rb_erase() elements from an rbtree while iterating over it using
rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe().

Doing this will cause random nodes to be missed by the iteration because
rb_erase() may rebalance the tree, changing the ordering that we're trying
to iterate over.

The previous documentation for rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe()
wasn't clear that this wasn't allowed, it was taken from the docs for
list_for_each_entry_safe(), where erasing isn't a problem due to
list_del() not reordering.

Explicitly warn developers about this potential pit-fall.

Note that I haven't fixed the actual issue that (it appears) the commit
referenced above introduced (not familiar enough with that code).

In general (and in this case), the patterns to follow are:
 - switch to rb_first() + rb_erase(), don't use
   rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe().
 - keep the postorder iteration and don't rb_erase() at all. Instead
   just clear the fields of rb_node & cgwb_congested_tree as required by
   other users of those structures.

Signed-off-by: Cody P Schafer <dev@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: John de la Garza <john@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---

 include/linux/rbtree.h |   12 ++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff -puN include/linux/rbtree.h~rbtree-clarify-documentation-of-rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe include/linux/rbtree.h
--- a/include/linux/rbtree.h~rbtree-clarify-documentation-of-rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe
+++ a/include/linux/rbtree.h
@@ -101,13 +101,21 @@ static inline void rb_link_node_rcu(stru
 	})
 
 /**
- * rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe - iterate over rb_root in post order of
- * given type safe against removal of rb_node entry
+ * rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe - iterate in post-order over rb_root of
+ * given type allowing the backing memory of @pos to be invalidated
  *
  * @pos:	the 'type *' to use as a loop cursor.
  * @n:		another 'type *' to use as temporary storage
  * @root:	'rb_root *' of the rbtree.
  * @field:	the name of the rb_node field within 'type'.
+ *
+ * This function provides a similar guarantee as list_for_each_entry_safe() and
+ * allows the iteration to continue independent of changes to @pos by the body
+ * of the loop.
+ *
+ * Note, however, that it cannot handle other modifications that re-order the
+ * rbtree it is iterating over. This includes calling rb_erase() on @pos, as
+ * rb_erase() may rebalance the tree, causing us to miss some nodes.
  */
 #define rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe(pos, n, root, field) \
 	for (pos = rb_entry_safe(rb_first_postorder(root), typeof(*pos), field); \
_

Patches currently in -mm which might be from dev@xxxxxxxxxx are

rbtree-clarify-documentation-of-rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe.patch

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe mm-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies FAQ]     [Kernel Archive]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux