linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: kernel-team@lge.com, ying.huang@intel.com, peterz@infradead.org,
	mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
	paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, josh@joshtriplett.org,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
	joel@joelfernandes.org, len.brown@intel.com, glider@google.com,
	peter@hurleysoftware.com, aik@ozlabs.ru
Subject: [QUESTION] llist: Comment releasing 'must delete' restriction before traversing
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 09:58:36 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1532998716-5037-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> (raw)

Hello folks,

I'm careful in saying.. and curious about..

In restrictive cases like only addtions happen but never deletion, can't
we safely traverse a llist? I believe llist can be more useful if we can
release the restriction. Can't we?

If yes, we may add another function traversing starting from a head. Or
just use existing funtion with head->first.

Thank a lot for your answers in advance :)

----->8-----
From 1e73882799b269cd86e7a7c955021e3a18d1e6cf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 09:31:57 +0900
Subject: [QUESTION] llist: Comment releasing 'must delete' restriction before
 traversing

llist traversing can run without deletion in restrictive cases all
items are added but never deleted like a rculist traversing such as
list_for_each_entry_lockless. So add the comment.

Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
---
 include/linux/llist.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/llist.h b/include/linux/llist.h
index 85abc29..d012d3e 100644
--- a/include/linux/llist.h
+++ b/include/linux/llist.h
@@ -32,8 +32,12 @@
  * operation, with "-" being no lock needed, while "L" being lock is needed.
  *
  * The list entries deleted via llist_del_all can be traversed with
- * traversing function such as llist_for_each etc.  But the list
- * entries can not be traversed safely before deleted from the list.
+ * traversing function such as llist_for_each etc.  Normally the list
+ * entries cannot be traversed safely before deleted from the list
+ * except the cases items are added to the list but never deleted.  In
+ * that restrictive cases the list may be safely traversed concurrently
+ * with llist_add.
+ *
  * The order of deleted entries is from the newest to the oldest added
  * one.  If you want to traverse from the oldest to the newest, you
  * must reverse the order by yourself before traversing.
@@ -116,7 +120,9 @@ static inline void init_llist_head(struct llist_head *list)
  *
  * In general, some entries of the lock-less list can be traversed
  * safely only after being deleted from list, so start with an entry
- * instead of list head.
+ * instead of list head.  But in restrictive cases items are added to
+ * the list but never deleted, the list may be safely traversed
+ * concurrently with llist_add.
  *
  * If being used on entries deleted from lock-less list directly, the
  * traverse order is from the newest to the oldest added entry.  If
@@ -135,7 +141,9 @@ static inline void init_llist_head(struct llist_head *list)
  *
  * In general, some entries of the lock-less list can be traversed
  * safely only after being deleted from list, so start with an entry
- * instead of list head.
+ * instead of list head.  But in restrictive cases items are added to
+ * the list but never deleted, the list may be safely traversed
+ * concurrently with llist_add.
  *
  * If being used on entries deleted from lock-less list directly, the
  * traverse order is from the newest to the oldest added entry.  If
@@ -153,7 +161,9 @@ static inline void init_llist_head(struct llist_head *list)
  *
  * In general, some entries of the lock-less list can be traversed
  * safely only after being removed from list, so start with an entry
- * instead of list head.
+ * instead of list head.  But in restrictive cases items are added to
+ * the list but never deleted, the list may be safely traversed
+ * concurrently with llist_add.
  *
  * If being used on entries deleted from lock-less list directly, the
  * traverse order is from the newest to the oldest added entry.  If
@@ -175,7 +185,9 @@ static inline void init_llist_head(struct llist_head *list)
  *
  * In general, some entries of the lock-less list can be traversed
  * safely only after being removed from list, so start with an entry
- * instead of list head.
+ * instead of list head.  But in restrictive cases items are added to
+ * the list but never deleted, the list may be safely traversed
+ * concurrently with llist_add.
  *
  * If being used on entries deleted from lock-less list directly, the
  * traverse order is from the newest to the oldest added entry.  If
-- 
1.9.1


             reply	other threads:[~2018-07-31  0:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-07-31  0:58 Byungchul Park [this message]
2018-07-31  1:37 ` [QUESTION] llist: Comment releasing 'must delete' restriction before traversing Huang, Ying
2018-07-31  5:25   ` Byungchul Park
2018-07-31  5:45     ` Huang, Ying
2018-07-31  4:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-31  9:29   ` Byungchul Park
2018-07-31 14:30     ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-01  5:34       ` Byungchul Park
2018-08-01  5:43     ` Huang, Ying
2018-08-01  8:52       ` Byungchul Park
2018-07-31  8:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-31  9:38   ` Byungchul Park
2018-07-31 13:46     ` Steven Rostedt
2018-08-01  5:35       ` Byungchul Park

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=1532998716-5037-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com \
    --to=byungchul.park@lge.com \
    --cc=aik@ozlabs.ru \
    --cc=glider@google.com \
    --cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
    --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
    --cc=kernel-team@lge.com \
    --cc=len.brown@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=peter@hurleysoftware.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).