diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'include/linux/rculist.h')
| -rw-r--r-- | include/linux/rculist.h | 88 |
1 files changed, 68 insertions, 20 deletions
diff --git a/include/linux/rculist.h b/include/linux/rculist.h index f8633d37e358..1b11926ddd47 100644 --- a/include/linux/rculist.h +++ b/include/linux/rculist.h @@ -11,15 +11,6 @@ #include <linux/rcupdate.h> /* - * Why is there no list_empty_rcu()? Because list_empty() serves this - * purpose. The list_empty() function fetches the RCU-protected pointer - * and compares it to the address of the list head, but neither dereferences - * this pointer itself nor provides this pointer to the caller. Therefore, - * it is not necessary to use rcu_dereference(), so that list_empty() can - * be used anywhere you would want to use a list_empty_rcu(). - */ - -/* * INIT_LIST_HEAD_RCU - Initialize a list_head visible to RCU readers * @list: list to be initialized * @@ -39,6 +30,17 @@ static inline void INIT_LIST_HEAD_RCU(struct list_head *list) * way, we must not access it directly */ #define list_next_rcu(list) (*((struct list_head __rcu **)(&(list)->next))) +/* + * Return the ->prev pointer of a list_head in an rcu safe way. Don't + * access it directly. + * + * Any list traversed with list_bidir_prev_rcu() must never use + * list_del_rcu(). Doing so will poison the ->prev pointer that + * list_bidir_prev_rcu() relies on, which will result in segfaults. + * To prevent these segfaults, use list_bidir_del_rcu() instead + * of list_del_rcu(). + */ +#define list_bidir_prev_rcu(list) (*((struct list_head __rcu **)(&(list)->prev))) /** * list_tail_rcu - returns the prev pointer of the head of the list @@ -168,6 +170,39 @@ static inline void list_del_rcu(struct list_head *entry) } /** + * list_bidir_del_rcu - deletes entry from list without re-initialization + * @entry: the element to delete from the list. + * + * In contrast to list_del_rcu() doesn't poison the prev pointer thus + * allowing backwards traversal via list_bidir_prev_rcu(). + * + * Note: list_empty() on entry does not return true after this because + * the entry is in a special undefined state that permits RCU-based + * lockfree reverse traversal. In particular this means that we can not + * poison the forward and backwards pointers that may still be used for + * walking the list. + * + * The caller must take whatever precautions are necessary (such as + * holding appropriate locks) to avoid racing with another list-mutation + * primitive, such as list_bidir_del_rcu() or list_add_rcu(), running on + * this same list. However, it is perfectly legal to run concurrently + * with the _rcu list-traversal primitives, such as + * list_for_each_entry_rcu(). + * + * Note that list_del_rcu() and list_bidir_del_rcu() must not be used on + * the same list. + * + * Note that the caller is not permitted to immediately free + * the newly deleted entry. Instead, either synchronize_rcu() + * or call_rcu() must be used to defer freeing until an RCU + * grace period has elapsed. + */ +static inline void list_bidir_del_rcu(struct list_head *entry) +{ + __list_del_entry(entry); +} + +/** * hlist_del_init_rcu - deletes entry from hash list with re-initialization * @n: the element to delete from the hash list. * @@ -200,7 +235,10 @@ static inline void hlist_del_init_rcu(struct hlist_node *n) * @old : the element to be replaced * @new : the new element to insert * - * The @old entry will be replaced with the @new entry atomically. + * The @old entry will be replaced with the @new entry atomically from + * the perspective of concurrent readers. It is the caller's responsibility + * to synchronize with concurrent updaters, if any. + * * Note: @old should not be empty. */ static inline void list_replace_rcu(struct list_head *old, @@ -318,21 +356,29 @@ static inline void list_splice_tail_init_rcu(struct list_head *list, /* * Where are list_empty_rcu() and list_first_entry_rcu()? * - * Implementing those functions following their counterparts list_empty() and - * list_first_entry() is not advisable because they lead to subtle race - * conditions as the following snippet shows: + * They do not exist because they would lead to subtle race conditions: * * if (!list_empty_rcu(mylist)) { * struct foo *bar = list_first_entry_rcu(mylist, struct foo, list_member); * do_something(bar); * } * - * The list may not be empty when list_empty_rcu checks it, but it may be when - * list_first_entry_rcu rereads the ->next pointer. + * The list might be non-empty when list_empty_rcu() checks it, but it + * might have become empty by the time that list_first_entry_rcu() rereads + * the ->next pointer, which would result in a SEGV. + * + * When not using RCU, it is OK for list_first_entry() to re-read that + * pointer because both functions should be protected by some lock that + * blocks writers. * - * Rereading the ->next pointer is not a problem for list_empty() and - * list_first_entry() because they would be protected by a lock that blocks - * writers. + * When using RCU, list_empty() uses READ_ONCE() to fetch the + * RCU-protected ->next pointer and then compares it to the address of the + * list head. However, it neither dereferences this pointer nor provides + * this pointer to its caller. Thus, READ_ONCE() suffices (that is, + * rcu_dereference() is not needed), which means that list_empty() can be + * used anywhere you would want to use list_empty_rcu(). Just don't + * expect anything useful to happen if you do a subsequent lockless + * call to list_first_entry_rcu()!!! * * See list_first_or_null_rcu for an alternative. */ @@ -356,7 +402,7 @@ static inline void list_splice_tail_init_rcu(struct list_head *list, }) /** - * list_next_or_null_rcu - get the first element from a list + * list_next_or_null_rcu - get the next element from a list * @head: the head for the list. * @ptr: the list head to take the next element from. * @type: the type of the struct this is embedded in. @@ -520,7 +566,9 @@ static inline void hlist_del_rcu(struct hlist_node *n) * @old : the element to be replaced * @new : the new element to insert * - * The @old entry will be replaced with the @new entry atomically. + * The @old entry will be replaced with the @new entry atomically from + * the perspective of concurrent readers. It is the caller's responsibility + * to synchronize with concurrent updaters, if any. */ static inline void hlist_replace_rcu(struct hlist_node *old, struct hlist_node *new) |