Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 Mar 2019 08:04:02 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/4] rhashtable: use bit_spin_locks to protect hash bucket. |
| |
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 09:35:18AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26 2019, Herbert Xu wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 04:05:39PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > >> > >> + * Sometimes we unlock a bucket by writing a new pointer there. In that > >> + * case we don't need to unlock, but we do need to reset state such as > >> + * local_bh. For that we have rht_unlocked(). This doesn't include > >> + * the memory barrier that bit_spin_unlock() provides, but rcu_assign_pointer() > >> + * will have provided that. > > > > Hmm, are you sure that's enough? IIRC rcu_assign_pointer only > > provides a write barrier compared to the more complete (but one-way) > > barrier that a spin-lock provides. > > > > The bit_spin_unlock(), which I am avoiding as unnecessary, would have > provided release semantics. > i.e. any write by this CPU that happened before the releasing write > will be visible to other CPUs before (or when) they see the result of > the releasing write. > This is (as I understand it) exactly that rcu_assign_pointer() promises > - even before acquire semantics were added as Paul just reported. > > So yes, I am sure (surer now that I've walked through it carefully).
But why not construct a litmus test and apply tools/memory-model? ;-)
Thanx, Paul
| |