On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 08:36:44AM -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 07:11:52PM +0530, Nilay Shroff wrote:
On 6/13/24 18:26, Keith Busch wrote:
But that's not the problem for the rcu case. It's the last line that's the problem:
list->prev->next = list;
We can't change forward pointers for any element being detached from @head because a reader iterating the list may see that new pointer value and end up in the wrong list, breaking iteration. A synchronize rcu needs to happen before forward pointers can be mucked with, so it still needs to be done in two steps. Oh bother...
Agree and probably we may break it down using this API: static inline void list_cut_rcu(struct list_head *list, struct list_head *head, struct list_head *entry, void (*sync)(void)) { list->next = entry; list->prev = head->prev; __list_del(entry->prev, head); sync(); entry->prev = list; list->prev->next = list; }
Yes, that's the pattern, but I think we need an _srcu() variant: the "sync" callback needs to know the srcu_struct.
Just make a helper function like this:
static void my_synchronize_srcu(void) { synchronize_srcu(&my_srcu_struct); }
Or am I missing something subtle here?
Thanx, Paul