On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 02:50:51PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> After more thinking, I still think rcu_assign_pointer() is unneeded when a
> entry
> is removed. The remove-API does not care the order between unlink the entry
> and
> the changes to its fields. It is the caller's responsibility:
> - in the case of rcuhlist, the caller uses call_rcu()/synchronize_rcu(), etc
> to
> enforce all lookups exit and the later change on that entry is invisible to
> the
> lookups.
>
> - In the case of rculist_nulls, it seems refcounter is used to guarantee the
> order
> (see the example from Documentation/RCU/rculist_nulls.txt).
>
> - In our case, we allow the lookup to see the deleted desc even if it is in
> slab cache
> or its is initialized or it is re-added.
>
BTW is it a good idea? We can access deleted desc while it is allocated
and initialized to zero by kmem_cache_zalloc(), are we sure we cannot
see partially initialized desc->sptes[] entry? On related note what about
32 bit systems, they do not have atomic access to desc->sptes[].
--
Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
