On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 09:01:35AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
quoted text
> I think I understand what your comment above meant:  You don't need to
> do synchronize_rcu() because you can flush the workqueue instead to
> ensure that all readers have completed.

Yes.

quoted text
>  But if thats true, to me, the
> rcu_dereference itself is gratuitous,

Here's a thesis on what rcu_dereference does (besides documentation):

reader does this

	A: sock = n->sock
	B: use *sock

Say writer does this:

	C: newsock = allocate socket
	D: initialize(newsock)
	E: n->sock = newsock
	F: flush


On Alpha, reads could be reordered.  So, on smp, command A could get
data from point F, and command B - from point D (uninitialized, from
cache).  IOW, you get fresh pointer but stale data.
So we need to stick a barrier in there.

quoted text
> and that pointer is *not* actually
> RCU protected (nor does it need to be).

Heh, if readers are lockless and writer does init/update/sync,
this to me spells rcu.

-- 
MST
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html