On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 08:44:50AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Paul E. McKenney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > My guess is that the reference count is indeed costing you quite a
> > bit. I glance quickly at the patch, and most of the uses seem to
> > be of the form:
> >
> > increment ref count
> > rcu_read_lock()
> > do something
> > rcu_read_unlock()
> > decrement ref count
> >
> > Can't these cases rely solely on rcu_read_lock()? Why do you also
> > need to increment the reference count in these cases?
>
> The problem is on module unload: is it possible for CPU1 to be
> on "do something", and sleep, and, while it sleeps, CPU2 does
> rmmod(lsm), so that by the time CPU1 stops sleeping, the code it
> is executing has been freed?
OK, but in the above case, "do something" cannot be sleeping, since
it is under rcu_read_lock().
> Because stacker won't remove the lsm from the list of modules
> until mod->exit() is executed, and module_free(mod) happens
> immediately after that, the above scenario seems possible.
Right, if you have some other code path that sleeps (outside of
rcu_read_lock(), right?), then you need the reference count for that
code path. But the code paths that do not sleep should be able to
dispense with the reference count, reducing the cache-line traffic.
Thanx, Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
