Re: [PATCH 1/3] posix-timers: remove idr_lock

[Eric Dumazet]

Le vendredi 10 juin 2011 Ã 22:44 +0200, Andi Kleen a Ãcrit :
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:40:38PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Le vendredi 10 juin 2011 Ã 13:13 -0700, Andi Kleen a Ãcrit :
> > > From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > idr_lock is only used to protect the global posix_timers idr,
> > > but idr does its own locking (or RCUing) anyways and doesn't
> > > need it. So remove it.
> > 
> > Are you sure of this assertion Andi ?
> > 
> > I believe we need an external synchronization before calling
> > idr_remove() / idr_get_new()
> 
> idr has its own lock and from a quick check it seemed to always
> take it when needed. Also ipc/* don't take a lock for this as far
> as I can see, and I think RCU idr was designed for that.
> 

I dont think so. Just read idr_remove() code : its obviously unsafe.

RCU permits readers to only hold rcu_read_lock()

But writers need their (external) synchronization.






--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/