Re: [PATCH] Remove stop_machine during module load

[Andi Kleen]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the excellent review.

On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 01:44:57PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> OK, what about the read side?  Not so good for __unlink_module() to yank

That's independent from my patch isn't it? I don't think I'm changing
anything here. All of the issues you're pointing out are already
in the code (except for the missing read_barrier_depends() perhaps)

I think the lockless users like oops or sysrq-t typically have preemption
disabled, so they should be ok regarding that. 

> the module out from under a reader.  Therefore, all readers must either
> disable interrupts to block stop_machine() or must hold some sort of
> mutex that prevents modules from being unloaded.
> 
> First, where the heck -is- the read side...
> 
> o	each_symbol() needs its list_for_each_entry() to become
> 	list_for_each_entry_rcu() and needs local_irq_disable()

Ah that's needed for the Alpha barrier depends semantics,
right? 

> 	Yet another approach would be to use call_rcu() to defer the
> 	various kfree() &c calls later in free_module.

I think that would be a the better approach.

-Andi

--
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/