From: "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Cc: "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Will Deacon" <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] llist: Fix code comments about llist_del_first locking
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2016 10:12:39 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87lgvp3l60.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJWu+op4n399XOHD=N23j_NiNpV8kSb1qQ5UJGhhSU=gBqYpxA@mail.gmail.com> (Joel Fernandes's message of "Thu, 8 Dec 2016 16:43:24 -0800")
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Huang, Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
>>> Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Usage llist_del_first needs lock protection, however the table in the
>>>> comments of llist.h show a '-'. Correct this, and also add better
>>>> comments on top.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
>>>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
>>>> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
>>>> Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> include/linux/llist.h | 19 ++++++++++---------
>>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/llist.h b/include/linux/llist.h
>>>> index fd4ca0b..15e4949 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/llist.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/llist.h
>>>> @@ -3,14 +3,15 @@
>>>> /*
>>>> * Lock-less NULL terminated single linked list
>>>> *
>>>> - * If there are multiple producers and multiple consumers, llist_add
>>>> - * can be used in producers and llist_del_all can be used in
>>>> - * consumers. They can work simultaneously without lock. But
>>>> - * llist_del_first can not be used here. Because llist_del_first
>>>> - * depends on list->first->next does not changed if list->first is not
>>>> - * changed during its operation, but llist_del_first, llist_add,
>>>> - * llist_add (or llist_del_all, llist_add, llist_add) sequence in
>>>> - * another consumer may violate that.
>>>> + * If there are multiple producers and multiple consumers, llist_add can be
>>>> + * used in producers and llist_del_all can be used in consumers. They can work
>>>> + * simultaneously without lock. But llist_del_first will need to use a lock
>>>> + * with any other operation (ABA problem). This is because llist_del_first
>>>> + * depends on list->first->next not changing but there's no way to be sure
>>>> + * about that and the cmpxchg in llist_del_first may succeed if list->first is
>>>> + * the same after concurrent operations. For example, a llist_del_first,
>>>> + * llist_add, llist_add (or llist_del_all, llist_add, llist_add) sequence in
>>>> + * another consumer may cause violations.
>>>> *
>>>> * If there are multiple producers and one consumer, llist_add can be
>>>> * used in producers and llist_del_all or llist_del_first can be used
>>>> @@ -19,7 +20,7 @@
>>>> * This can be summarized as follow:
>>>> *
>>>> * | add | del_first | del_all
>>>> - * add | - | - | -
>>>> + * add | - | L | -
>>>
>>> If there are only one consumer which only calls llist_del_first(), lock
>>> is unnecessary. So '-' is shown here originally. But if there are
>>> multiple consumers which call llist_del_first() or llist_del_all(), lock
>>> is needed.
>>
>> I think this needs to be made more clear in the table. The table
>> doesn't clear say whether it describes the preceding paragraph
>> (multiple producers and one consumer), or if it describes the multiple
>> producers and one consumer case. So either we should have 2 tables, or
>
> Sorry, I meant "or if it describes the multiple producer and multiple
> consumer case".
I tried to describe both cases in the original table.
* | add | del_first | del_all
* add | - | - | -
* del_first | | L | L
* del_all | | | -
The 'L' for "del_first * del_first" means multiple consumers uses
llist_del_first() need lock. And the 'L' for 'del_first * del_all'
means multiple consumers uses llist_del_first() and llist_del_all() need
lock.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-09 2:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-08 21:54 [RFC] llist: Fix code comments about llist_del_first locking Joel Fernandes
2016-12-09 0:35 ` Huang, Ying
2016-12-09 0:42 ` Joel Fernandes
2016-12-09 0:43 ` Joel Fernandes
2016-12-09 2:12 ` Huang, Ying [this message]
2016-12-09 2:22 ` Joel Fernandes
2016-12-09 2:26 ` Huang, Ying
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=87lgvp3l60.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com \
--to=ying.huang@intel.com \
--cc=joelaf@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.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).