Re: [patch] fs: aio fix rcu lookup

[Jeff Moyer]

Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:46 AM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> ÂBut there's the second race I describe making it possible
>>>> for new IO to be created after io_destroy() has waited for all IO to
>>>> finish...
>>>
>>> Can't that be solved by introducing memory barriers around the accesses
>>> to ->dead?
>>
>> Upon further consideration, I don't think so.
>>
>> Given the options, I think adding the synchronize rcu to the io_destroy
>> path is the best way forward. ÂYou're already waiting for a bunch of
>> queued I/O to finish, so there is no guarantee that you're going to
>> finish that call quickly.
>
> I think synchronize_rcu() is not something to sprinkle around outside
> very slow paths. It can be done without synchronize_rcu.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.  Do you mean to imply that
io_destroy is not a very slow path?  Because it is.  I prefer a solution
that doesn't re-architecht things in order to solve a theoretical issue
that's never been observed.

Cheers,
Jeff
--
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/