[PATCH] rxrpc_find_service_conn_rcu: use read_seqbegin() rather than read_seqbegin_or_lock()
Oleg Nesterov
oleg at redhat.com
Thu Nov 16 06:19:51 PST 2023
On 11/16, David Howells wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > So do you agree that
> >
> > - the usage of read_seqbegin_or_lock/need_seqretry in
> > this code makes no sense because read_seqlock_excl()
> > is not possible
>
> Not exactly. I think it should take a lock on the second pass.
OK, then how about the patch below?
Again, I'd prefer to change the semantics/prototype of need_seqretry()
to enforce the locking on the 2nd pass "automatically", but a) this
needs more discussion and b) I can't do this before I update the users
which use read_seqbegin_or_lock/need_seqretry incorrectly. So lets
discuss this later.
Oleg.
--- a/net/rxrpc/conn_service.c
+++ b/net/rxrpc/conn_service.c
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ struct rxrpc_connection *rxrpc_find_service_conn_rcu(struct rxrpc_peer *peer,
struct rxrpc_conn_proto k;
struct rxrpc_skb_priv *sp = rxrpc_skb(skb);
struct rb_node *p;
- unsigned int seq = 0;
+ unsigned int seq = 1;
k.epoch = sp->hdr.epoch;
k.cid = sp->hdr.cid & RXRPC_CIDMASK;
@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ struct rxrpc_connection *rxrpc_find_service_conn_rcu(struct rxrpc_peer *peer,
* under just the RCU read lock, so we have to check for
* changes.
*/
+ seq++; /* 2 on the 1st/lockless path, otherwise odd */
read_seqbegin_or_lock(&peer->service_conn_lock, &seq);
p = rcu_dereference_raw(peer->service_conns.rb_node);
More information about the linux-afs
mailing list