On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 08:45:47AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On 5/31/19 7:45 AM, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:24:08AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> >>
> >> OK, let's call it barrier. But we need more than a barrier here then.
> >
> > READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE is not some magical dust that you sprinkle
> > around in your code to make it work without locks. You need to
> > understand exactly why you need them and why the code would be
> > buggy if you don't use them.
> >
> > In this case the code doesn't need them because an implicit
> > barrier() (which is *stronger* than READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE) already
> > exists in both places.
> >
>
> More over, adding READ_ONCE() while not really needed prevents some compiler
> optimizations.
>
> ( Not in this particular case, since fqdir->dead is read exactly once, but we
> could
> have had a loop )
>
> I have already explained that the READ_ONCE() was a leftover of the first
> version
> of the patch, that I refined later, adding correct (and slightly more
> complex) RCU
> barriers and rules.
>
> Dmitry, the self-documentation argument is perfectly good, but Herbert
> put much nicer ad hoc comments.
I don't see all the code, but let me see if I understand based on the
pieces that I do see...
o fqdir_exit() does a store-release to ->dead, then arranges
for fqdir_rwork_fn() to be called from workqueue context
after a grace period has elapsed.
o If inet_frag_kill() is invoked only from fqdir_rwork_fn(),
and if they are using the same fqdir, then inet_frag_kill()
would always see fqdir->dead==true.
But then it would not be necessary to check it, so this seems
unlikely.
o If fqdir_exit() does store-releases to a number of ->dead
fields under rcu_read_lock(), and if the next fqdir_exit()
won't happen until after all the callbacks complete
(combination of flushing workqueues and rcu_barrier(), for
example), then ->dead would be stable when inet_frag_kill()
is invoked, and might be true or not. (This again requires
inet_frag_kill() be only invoked from fqdir_rwork_fn().)
So I can imagine cases where this would in fact work. But did I get
it right or is something else happening?
Thanx, Paul
