summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorJoel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>2019-03-29 10:05:55 -0400
committerPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>2019-05-28 09:02:16 -0700
commitde1dbcee433ccff3e0a37698c65b40542c9d4cf1 (patch)
tree6465fbfa57570c5cd5e850f6c13d831c5cb7a8b0
parenta188339ca5a396acc588e5851ed7e19f66b0ebd9 (diff)
doc/rcuref: Document real world examples in kernel
Document similar real world examples in the kernel corresponding to the second and third code snippets. Also correct an issue in release_referenced() in the code snippet example. Cc: oleg@redhat.com Cc: jannh@google.com Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org> [ paulmck: Do a bit of wordsmithing. ] Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
-rw-r--r--Documentation/RCU/rcuref.txt21
1 files changed, 20 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/rcuref.txt b/Documentation/RCU/rcuref.txt
index 613033ff2b9b..5e6429d66c24 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/rcuref.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/rcuref.txt
@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ please read on.
Reference counting on elements of lists which are protected by traditional
reader/writer spinlocks or semaphores are straightforward:
+CODE LISTING A:
1. 2.
add() search_and_reference()
{ {
@@ -28,7 +29,8 @@ add() search_and_reference()
release_referenced() delete()
{ {
... write_lock(&list_lock);
- atomic_dec(&el->rc, relfunc) ...
+ if(atomic_dec_and_test(&el->rc)) ...
+ kfree(el);
... remove_element
} write_unlock(&list_lock);
...
@@ -44,6 +46,7 @@ search_and_reference() could potentially hold reference to an element which
has already been deleted from the list/array. Use atomic_inc_not_zero()
in this scenario as follows:
+CODE LISTING B:
1. 2.
add() search_and_reference()
{ {
@@ -79,6 +82,7 @@ search_and_reference() code path. In such cases, the
atomic_dec_and_test() may be moved from delete() to el_free()
as follows:
+CODE LISTING C:
1. 2.
add() search_and_reference()
{ {
@@ -114,6 +118,17 @@ element can therefore safely be freed. This in turn guarantees that if
any reader finds the element, that reader may safely acquire a reference
without checking the value of the reference counter.
+A clear advantage of the RCU-based pattern in listing C over the one
+in listing B is that any call to search_and_reference() that locates
+a given object will succeed in obtaining a reference to that object,
+even given a concurrent invocation of delete() for that same object.
+Similarly, a clear advantage of both listings B and C over listing A is
+that a call to delete() is not delayed even if there are an arbitrarily
+large number of calls to search_and_reference() searching for the same
+object that delete() was invoked on. Instead, all that is delayed is
+the eventual invocation of kfree(), which is usually not a problem on
+modern computer systems, even the small ones.
+
In cases where delete() can sleep, synchronize_rcu() can be called from
delete(), so that el_free() can be subsumed into delete as follows:
@@ -130,3 +145,7 @@ delete()
kfree(el);
...
}
+
+As additional examples in the kernel, the pattern in listing C is used by
+reference counting of struct pid, while the pattern in listing B is used by
+struct posix_acl.