Donate to e Foundation | Murena handsets with /e/OS | Own a part of Murena! Learn more

Skip to content
Commit 88c18630 authored by Paul E. McKenney's avatar Paul E. McKenney
Browse files

rcu: Define rcu_assign_pointer() in terms of smp_store_release()



The new smp_store_release() function provides better guarantees than did
rcu_assign_pointer(), and potentially less overhead on some architectures.
The guarantee that smp_store_release() provides that rcu_assign_pointer()
does that is obscure, but its lack could cause considerable confusion.
This guarantee is illustrated by the following code fragment:

	struct foo {
		int a;
		int b;
		int c;
		struct foo *next;
	};
	struct foo foo1;
	struct foo foo2;
	struct foo __rcu *foop;

	...

	foo2.a = 1;
	foo2.b = 2;
	BUG_ON(foo2.c);
	rcu_assign_pointer(foop, &foo);

	...

	fp = rcu_dereference(foop);
	fp.c = 3;

The current rcu_assign_pointer() semantics permit the BUG_ON() to
trigger because rcu_assign_pointer()'s smp_wmb() is not guaranteed to
order prior reads against later writes.  This commit therefore upgrades
rcu_assign_pointer() from smp_wmb() to smp_store_release() to avoid this
counter-intuitive outcome.

Signed-off-by: default avatarPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: default avatarJosh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
parent 0adab9b9
Loading
Loading
Loading
Loading
0% Loading or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Please register or to comment