Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1306589 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-11 19:30 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-01-12 17:00 +0100 |
| Articles | 4 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
[PATCH] rbtree: use READ_ONCE in RB_EMPTY_ROOT Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-01-11 19:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH] rbtree: use READ_ONCE in RB_EMPTY_ROOT Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-01-12 10:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH] rbtree: use READ_ONCE in RB_EMPTY_ROOT Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-01-12 16:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH] rbtree: use READ_ONCE in RB_EMPTY_ROOT Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-01-12 17:00 +0100
| From | Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 19:30 +0100 |
| Subject | [PATCH] rbtree: use READ_ONCE in RB_EMPTY_ROOT |
| Message-ID | <qPPo6-67U-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
With d72da4a4d97 (rbtree: Make lockless searches non-fatal) our rbtrees
provide weak guarantees that allows us to do lockless (and very speculative)
reads of the tree. Such readers cannot see partial stores on nodes, ie
left/right as well as root. As such, similar to the WRITE_ONCE semantics when
doing rotations, use READ_ONCE when checking the root node in RB_EMPTY_ROOT.
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
---
include/linux/rbtree.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/rbtree.h b/include/linux/rbtree.h
index a5aa7ae..b690009 100644
--- a/include/linux/rbtree.h
+++ b/include/linux/rbtree.h
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ struct rb_root {
#define RB_ROOT (struct rb_root) { NULL, }
#define rb_entry(ptr, type, member) container_of(ptr, type, member)
-#define RB_EMPTY_ROOT(root) ((root)->rb_node == NULL)
+#define RB_EMPTY_ROOT(root) (READ_ONCE((root)->rb_node) == NULL)
/* 'empty' nodes are nodes that are known not to be inserted in an rbtree */
#define RB_EMPTY_NODE(node) \
--
2.1.4
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 10:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qQ37I-7fJ-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1306589 |
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:22:43AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > With d72da4a4d97 (rbtree: Make lockless searches non-fatal) our rbtrees > provide weak guarantees that allows us to do lockless (and very speculative) > reads of the tree. Such readers cannot see partial stores on nodes, ie > left/right as well as root. As such, similar to the WRITE_ONCE semantics when > doing rotations, use READ_ONCE when checking the root node in RB_EMPTY_ROOT. No objection, but is this actually used anywhere? Or is this a just-in-case completeness thing?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 16:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qQ8TM-2LK-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1307129 |
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:22:43AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: >> With d72da4a4d97 (rbtree: Make lockless searches non-fatal) our rbtrees >> provide weak guarantees that allows us to do lockless (and very speculative) >> reads of the tree. Such readers cannot see partial stores on nodes, ie >> left/right as well as root. As such, similar to the WRITE_ONCE semantics when >> doing rotations, use READ_ONCE when checking the root node in RB_EMPTY_ROOT. > >No objection, but is this actually used anywhere? I found this because I wanted to use the waiter check in rtmutexes in a lockless fashion (ie rt_mutex_has_waiters). > >Or is this a just-in-case completeness thing? This too. Thanks, Davidlohr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 17:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qQ9wu-2Zn-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1307527 |
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 07:09:46AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > >On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:22:43AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > >>With d72da4a4d97 (rbtree: Make lockless searches non-fatal) our rbtrees > >>provide weak guarantees that allows us to do lockless (and very speculative) > >>reads of the tree. Such readers cannot see partial stores on nodes, ie > >>left/right as well as root. As such, similar to the WRITE_ONCE semantics when > >>doing rotations, use READ_ONCE when checking the root node in RB_EMPTY_ROOT. > > > >No objection, but is this actually used anywhere? > > I found this because I wanted to use the waiter check in rtmutexes in a lockless > fashion (ie rt_mutex_has_waiters). OK, fair enough. Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web