On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 12:59:40AM +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 09:04:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 15:00 -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have a piece of code that is always called under a spinlock with
> > > interrups disabled. Within that piece of code I iterate through a
> > > list. I have another piece of code that wants to modify that list. I
> > > have 2 options:
> > >
> > > I don't want to do 1) because the otheir piece of code does not really
> > > care about object owning the spinlock and so acquiring the spinlock is
> > > "not nice". However it is guaranteed that the piece of code that
> > > accesses lock runs atomically with interrupts disabled. So
> > > rcu_read_lock() would be superfluos there.
> > >
> > > Is it possible to still use list_for_each_rcu() and friends to access
> > > that list without rcu_read_lock()? Or it is betteruse complete RCU
> > > interface and eat cost of couple of extra instrctions?
> > Yes, preemptible rcu requires that you use the full interface, also, it
> > more clearly documents the code. Trying to find code that breaks these
> > assumptions is very tedious work after the fact.
> > Please do use the RCU interface in full.
> As Peter said, you should use the strict RCU APIs and not rely
> on the current implementation of RCU to optimize. Things change.
> Plus static/dynamic checking becomes easier that way.
What they said!!!
There are a couple of other options, however:
1. Use preempt_disable() and preempt_enable() on the read side,
and synchronize_sched() on the update side.
2. Use local_irq_save() and local_irq_restore() on the read side,
and synchronize_sched() on the update side. Usually not
competitive -- unless interrupts needed to be disabled for some
other reason anyway. Which you in fact say that you do.
I believe that #2 might do what you want. But please, PLEASE carefully
comment this usage!!!