From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Paul E. McKenney) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:37:57 -0700 Subject: [ltt-dev] [PATCH 6/7] urcu, call_rcu: Cleanup call_rcu_data pointers before used in child In-Reply-To: <0f645da2f35f5c974a7059655e7b2e199cf98f72.1317198301.git.laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <0f645da2f35f5c974a7059655e7b2e199cf98f72.1317198301.git.laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: <20110929173757.GD2362@linux.vnet.ibm.com> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 04:34:32PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan > --- > urcu-call-rcu-impl.h | 6 ++++++ > 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/urcu-call-rcu-impl.h b/urcu-call-rcu-impl.h > index 65c1c7a..3c68ae7 100644 > --- a/urcu-call-rcu-impl.h > +++ b/urcu-call-rcu-impl.h > @@ -686,6 +686,12 @@ void call_rcu_after_fork_child(void) > default_call_rcu_data = NULL; > (void)get_default_call_rcu_data(); > > + /* Cleanup call_rcu_data pointers before used */ > + maxcpus = 0; > + free(per_cpu_call_rcu_data); > + per_cpu_call_rcu_data = NULL; Good catch! I would expect that the number of CPUs would be the same for the child as it was for the parent, but doesn't hurt to make the child start over. > + thread_call_rcu_data = NULL; Isn't thread_call_rcu_data already NULL due to the child being a new thread and the C initialization-to-zero rules? Thanx, Paul > + > /* Dispose of all of the rest of the call_rcu_data structures. */ > cds_list_for_each_entry_safe(crdp, next, &call_rcu_data_list, list) { > if (crdp == default_call_rcu_data) > -- > 1.7.4.4 >