summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/Documentation/RCU/rcuref.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>2012-10-28 03:34:51 +0400
committerPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>2012-11-08 23:44:38 +0400
commita4d611fdca0d696f9b8ffb007a119944ed5275fa (patch)
tree87eb64500ffd89e1bf75af158abbf21dd846ed45 /Documentation/RCU/rcuref.txt
parent57d34a6cee1399bfedaa73add1915951cbe75cab (diff)
downloadlinux-a4d611fdca0d696f9b8ffb007a119944ed5275fa.tar.xz
rcu: Document alternative RCU/reference-count algorithms
The approach for mixing RCU and reference counting listed in the RCU documentation only describes one possible approach. This approach can result in failure on the read side, which is nice if you want fresh data, but not so good if you want simple code. This commit therefore adds two additional approaches that feature unconditional reference-count acquisition by RCU readers. These approaches are very similar to that used in the security code. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/RCU/rcuref.txt')
-rw-r--r--Documentation/RCU/rcuref.txt61
1 files changed, 59 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/rcuref.txt b/Documentation/RCU/rcuref.txt
index 4202ad093130..141d531aa14b 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/rcuref.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/rcuref.txt
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ release_referenced() delete()
{ {
... write_lock(&list_lock);
atomic_dec(&el->rc, relfunc) ...
- ... delete_element
+ ... remove_element
} write_unlock(&list_lock);
...
if (atomic_dec_and_test(&el->rc))
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ release_referenced() delete()
{ {
... spin_lock(&list_lock);
if (atomic_dec_and_test(&el->rc)) ...
- call_rcu(&el->head, el_free); delete_element
+ call_rcu(&el->head, el_free); remove_element
... spin_unlock(&list_lock);
} ...
if (atomic_dec_and_test(&el->rc))
@@ -64,3 +64,60 @@ Sometimes, a reference to the element needs to be obtained in the
update (write) stream. In such cases, atomic_inc_not_zero() might be
overkill, since we hold the update-side spinlock. One might instead
use atomic_inc() in such cases.
+
+It is not always convenient to deal with "FAIL" in the
+search_and_reference() code path. In such cases, the
+atomic_dec_and_test() may be moved from delete() to el_free()
+as follows:
+
+1. 2.
+add() search_and_reference()
+{ {
+ alloc_object rcu_read_lock();
+ ... search_for_element
+ atomic_set(&el->rc, 1); atomic_inc(&el->rc);
+ spin_lock(&list_lock); ...
+
+ add_element rcu_read_unlock();
+ ... }
+ spin_unlock(&list_lock); 4.
+} delete()
+3. {
+release_referenced() spin_lock(&list_lock);
+{ ...
+ ... remove_element
+ if (atomic_dec_and_test(&el->rc)) spin_unlock(&list_lock);
+ kfree(el); ...
+ ... call_rcu(&el->head, el_free);
+} ...
+5. }
+void el_free(struct rcu_head *rhp)
+{
+ release_referenced();
+}
+
+The key point is that the initial reference added by add() is not removed
+until after a grace period has elapsed following removal. This means that
+search_and_reference() cannot find this element, which means that the value
+of el->rc cannot increase. Thus, once it reaches zero, there are no
+readers that can or ever will be able to reference the element. The
+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.
+
+In cases where delete() can sleep, synchronize_rcu() can be called from
+delete(), so that el_free() can be subsumed into delete as follows:
+
+4.
+delete()
+{
+ spin_lock(&list_lock);
+ ...
+ remove_element
+ spin_unlock(&list_lock);
+ ...
+ synchronize_rcu();
+ if (atomic_dec_and_test(&el->rc))
+ kfree(el);
+ ...
+}