From: f@zz.de (Florian Lohoff)
Subject: [lttng-dev] URCU accessing rcu_head->func
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 08:52:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140203075259.GA25614@pax.zz.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <582363683.17541.1391398658096.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Hi, Mathieu,
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 03:37:38AM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >
> > I am in the read side critical section so my structure
> > cant appear under my feet but the above can be racy at
> > best.
>
> I guess you meant "disappear" here ?
Yep
> > What would be the best way to achieve something like:
> >
> > "queue for call_rcu if not already queued"
> >
> > Another flag with an atomic inc or something?
>
> Indeed, the scheme you describe above seems to be racy, since there could be
> two or more read-side critical sections accessing the same object concurrently,
> and doing two call_rcu() enqueuing the same object (same linked list node) twice
> into the call_rcu lists will simply corrupt those lists.
>
> Let me first rephrase your intent here just to make sure I understand: you use
> RCU read-side to provide existence guarantee on the "rs" object, and you want
> to enqueue the object rcuhead with call_rcu() for deletion (free_obj) after a
> grace period has elapsed.
>
> Assuming you care about keeping this code path wait-free or lock-free (at least),
> using uatomic_xchg() would allow you to set an atomic flag and know, from the
> returned value, whether you "own" the object reclaim or not. You can then decide
> whether or not call_rcu() needs to be called based on the value read by
> uatomic_xchg().
>
> You could do something similar with mutexes, but then you would lose the
> wait-freedom characteristic of this code path, which I am guessing is one
> key reason why you use RCU read-side lock and call_rcu() in the first place.
>
> Does it make sense ?
I solved it a little different. I am using a RCU hash for keeping the
data structures and i simply took the reasult of cds_lfht_del
or cds_lfht_add_replace.
If i successfully remove my structure from the hash i queue for later
destruction. As the removal should only happen successfully once i should
be done.
Its just a little bit more tricky to get correct.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f at zz.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 828 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.lttng.org/pipermail/lttng-dev/attachments/20140203/ef086497/attachment.pgp>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-03 7:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20140131201632.GA32482@pax.zz.de>
2014-02-03 3:37 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2014-02-03 7:52 ` Florian Lohoff [this message]
2014-02-03 14:47 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140203075259.GA25614@pax.zz.de \
--to=f@zz.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox