On 21.05.2013 19:16, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 18:47 +0400, Roman Gushchin wrote:
On 21.05.2013 17:44, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 05:09 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:


-#define hlist_nulls_first_rcu(head) \
-       (*((struct hlist_nulls_node __rcu __force **)&(head)->first))
+#define hlist_nulls_first_rcu(head)                    \
+       (*((struct hlist_nulls_node __rcu __force **)   \
+          &((volatile typeof(*head) *)head)->first))

Why not use ACCESS_ONCE() or (better) rcu_dereference_raw() here?

More exactly we have :

#define list_entry_rcu(ptr, type, member) \
          ({typeof (*ptr) __rcu *__ptr = (typeof (*ptr) __rcu __force *)ptr; \
           container_of((typeof(ptr))rcu_dereference_raw(__ptr), type, member); 
\
          })

#define list_for_each_entry_rcu(pos, head, member) \
          for (pos = list_entry_rcu((head)->next, typeof(*pos), member); \
                  &pos->member != (head); \
                  pos = list_entry_rcu(pos->member.next, typeof(*pos), member))
<< and >>

#define hlist_nulls_for_each_entry_rcu(tpos, pos, head, member)                 
\
          for (pos = rcu_dereference_raw(hlist_nulls_first_rcu(head));          
  \
                  (!is_a_nulls(pos)) &&                                         
  \
                  ({ tpos = hlist_nulls_entry(pos, typeof(*tpos), member); 1; 
}); \
                  pos = rcu_dereference_raw(hlist_nulls_next_rcu(pos)))

We need to change hlist_nulls_for_each_entry_rcu() to use same construct,
so that the rcu_dereference_raw() is performed at the right place.

No.

This code has the same mistake: it is rcu_dereference_raw(head->first),
so there is nothing that prevents gcc to store the (head->first) value
in a register.

Please read again what I wrote, you misundertood.

hlist_nulls_for_each_entry_rcu() should use same construct than
list_for_each_entry_rcu(), and not use rcu_dereference_raw()

Is that clear, or do you want me to send the patch ?

If you think, that it will solve the problem, please, send a patch. I think, you are wrong here.
If you think only that it will look better, I agree.

Regards,
Roman

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to