Received: by 2002:ac0:a5a6:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m35-v6csp1981435imm; Sun, 23 Sep 2018 16:55:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV607a20U0KrVyNnBKrkbwqA70PpVFyW1gXZcd6EorgD6kdt11NdyqmqkeWr3YIn0q8RqGKIR X-Received: by 2002:a63:1245:: with SMTP id 5-v6mr7186559pgs.299.1537746946953; Sun, 23 Sep 2018 16:55:46 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1537746946; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=dDmj1j9HQzh/KdptA9tzq9Y6KgiwSzdAWFoNqaicb26ncBUVGeoqH7KwooF2rhovys OHM7v2RhHQ9++wGCWzFAfuwo94nd4ly/BT0nyXYsbBqVNnuTYGGJ2Xg8aBPrc+DORf/5 3A38ewhM75DKREX6Ndg7x4ZiEIuQxJUO1vDvOfjb2zd4SACctU5kvMQ+6QvfnpdEjiIo k0l+0arCa6YVagDpbM7/vTr78j++h9Py62SA8EhiQVKq01tFtzqfwylu9CjPC12Q0qsi gt4G7aM2wyMPvdvG3nHEqHuBZ01mhIoCz1ECla9KEZDVkq6GmJ7Fp9rK2jBt678ekedz dVNA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:cc:to :from:date; bh=MNq6G0ocYuvRW3jtGKhlTSPfueU2Y0dm0i2/caZsP5w=; b=ukSryzceqtVVf8limrmGK0iz3tj3G08CkZNgvQZr5dINN4QdtiJFGtPfwH1EA91neg IwAoy/Ht4AS/oTIQVswPHRMicoCPlsczMqX/NGAHJ0CaNzLQOpkKJ0cryUkygRk3LKhU K+VRHNmH6CZcTTFrp9lFsDcPK6JCk1gmUMZHxb8Je1UDWwSsv6k66EP04En5SjiROc67 U5U66p6r6FgTZEC6ZaLUmHyV0aJbpWUn+aID+lE7uGnvbZIfpFKrxxcqNdJM0A5nAfFV Pfbq99PZ4hFBhuk7RY20E0+Ls/OTVv9n/SljjBCTnzxU+Zz5RnuMmpAx2FHhORi3ZQEh SBVw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id a98-v6si35145465pla.396.2018.09.23.16.55.31; Sun, 23 Sep 2018 16:55:46 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727290AbeIXFyq (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 24 Sep 2018 01:54:46 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:40222 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725919AbeIXFyq (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Sep 2018 01:54:46 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098394.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w8NNsFdr019727 for ; Sun, 23 Sep 2018 19:55:17 -0400 Received: from e17.ny.us.ibm.com (e17.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.207]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2mp2rn31b3-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 23 Sep 2018 19:55:17 -0400 Received: from localhost by e17.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Sun, 23 Sep 2018 19:55:15 -0400 Received: from b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.27) by e17.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.204) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Sun, 23 Sep 2018 19:55:13 -0400 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id w8NNtCqa14942394 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 23 Sep 2018 23:55:12 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD2FAB2068; Sun, 23 Sep 2018 19:53:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E12EB2065; Sun, 23 Sep 2018 19:53:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.85.154.62]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Sep 2018 19:53:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 157E516C1971; Sun, 23 Sep 2018 16:55:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2018 16:55:12 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Joel Fernandes Cc: LKML Subject: Re: Question about ->head field of rcu_segcblist Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18092323-0040-0000-0000-00000474E26A X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00009760; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000266; SDB=6.01092701; UDB=6.00564701; IPR=6.00872736; MB=3.00023472; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2018-09-23 23:55:14 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18092323-0041-0000-0000-0000087CE565 Message-Id: <20180923235512.GB4222@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-09-23_12:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1807170000 definitions=main-1809230253 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 07:31:37PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 7:30 PM Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > > Hi Paul, > > > > I was parsing the Data-Structures document and had a question about > > the following "Important note" text. > > > > Could it be clarified in the below text better why "remaining > > callbacks are placed back on the RCU_DONE_TAIL segment", is a reason > > for not depending on ->head for determining if no callbacks are > > associated with the rcu_segcblist? If callbacks are added back to the > > DONE_TAIL segment, then I would think rcu_head should be != NULL. > > Infact the "rsclp->head = *rsclp->tails[RCU_DONE_TAIL];" in > > rcu_segcblist_extract_done_cbs should set the ->head to NULL if I > > understand correctly. > > Just to clarify, I meant set to NULL assuming all cbs were done > waiting and ready to be invoked. Ah, good, then that is correct. But even then, being NULL doesn't mean no callbacks because they might be temporarily held by rcu_do_batch(). Thanx, Paul