Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 10 Oct 2013 04:04:22 +0200 | From | Hannes Frederic Sowa <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 tip/core/rcu 07/13] ipv6/ip6_tunnel: Apply rcu_access_pointer() to avoid sparse false positive |
| |
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 05:28:33PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 05:12:40PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 16:40 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > > > that. Constructs like list_del_rcu are much clearer, and not > > > open-coded. Open-coding synchronization code is almost always a Bad > > > Idea. > > > > OK, so you think there is synchronization code. > > > > I will shut up then, no need to waste time. > > As you said earlier, we should at least get rid of the memory barrier > as long as we are changing the code.
Interesting thread!
Sorry to chime in and asking a question:
Why do we need an ACCESS_ONCE here if rcu_assign_pointer can do without one? In other words I wonder why rcu_assign_pointer is not a static inline function to use the sequence point in argument evaluation (if I remember correctly this also holds for inline functions) to not allow something like this:
E.g. we want to publish which lock to take first to prevent an ABBA problem (extreme example):
rcu_assign_pointer(lockptr, min(lptr1, lptr2));
Couldn't a compiler spill the lockptr memory location as a temporary buffer if the compiler is under register pressure? (yes, this seems unlikely if we flushed out most registers to memory because of the barrier, but still... ;) )
This seems to be also the case if we publish a multi-dereferencing pointers e.g. ptr->ptr->ptr.
Thanks,
Hannes
| |