Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:37:39 -0800
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Stephen Hemminger 
	<"stephen.hemminger@vyatta.com"@mail.vyatta.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net,
       netdev@vger.kernel.org, dipankar@in.ibm.com, ego@in.ibm.com,
       herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] remove rcu_assign_pointer(NULL) penalty with
 type/macro safety
Message-ID: <20080213173739.1823ac4f@extreme>
In-Reply-To: <20080214013427.GT12393@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20080213220024.GA30729@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20080213143537.1b806790@extreme>
	<20080213224134.GK12393@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20080213144233.05e860cb@extreme>
	<20080213233744.GO12393@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20080213155158.1b621359@extreme>
	<20080214001404.GQ12393@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20080213162700.0a32000d@extreme>
	<20080214004253.GR12393@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20080213165356.11d02092@extreme>
	<20080214013427.GT12393@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Organization: Vyatta
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2622
Lines: 68

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:34:27 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 04:53:56PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:42:53 -0800
> > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 04:27:00PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> 
> [ . . . ]
> 
> > > > That is heading towards ugly...  Maybe not using the macro at all (for this case) would be best:
> > > > 
> > > > static inline void node_set_parent(struct node *node, struct tnode *ptr)
> > > > {
> > > > 	smp_wmb();
> > > > 	node->parent = (unsigned long)ptr | NODE_TYPE(node);
> > > > }
> > > 
> > > Or, alternatively, the rcu_assign_index() patch sent earlier to avoid
> > > the bare memory barrier?
> > > 
> > > 							Thanx, Paul
> > 
> > I am fine with rcu_assign_index(), and add a comment in node_set_parent.
> 
> OK, how about the following?
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> 
>  fib_trie.c |   11 +++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff -urpNa -X dontdiff linux-2.6.25-rc1/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c linux-2.6.25-rc1-fib_trie-warn.compile/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c
> --- linux-2.6.25-rc1/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c	2008-02-13 14:38:12.000000000 -0800
> +++ linux-2.6.25-rc1-fib_trie-warn.compile/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c	2008-02-13 17:31:16.000000000 -0800
> @@ -96,6 +96,14 @@ typedef unsigned int t_key;
>  #define IS_TNODE(n) (!(n->parent & T_LEAF))
>  #define IS_LEAF(n) (n->parent & T_LEAF)
>  
> +/*
> + * The "parent" fields in struct node and struct leaf are really pointers,
> + * but with the possibility that the T_LEAF bit is set.  Therefore, both
> + * the C compiler and RCU see them as integers rather than pointers.
> + * This in turn means that rcu_assign_index() must be used to assign
> + * values to these fields, rather than the usual rcu_assign_pointer().
> + */
> +
>  struct node {
>  	unsigned long parent;
>  	t_key key;
> @@ -179,8 +187,7 @@ static inline struct tnode *node_parent_
>  
>  static inline void node_set_parent(struct node *node, struct tnode *ptr)
>  {
> -	rcu_assign_pointer(node->parent,
> -			   (unsigned long)ptr | NODE_TYPE(node));
> +	rcu_assign_index(node->parent, (unsigned long)ptr | NODE_TYPE(node));
>  }
>  
>  static inline struct node *tnode_get_child(struct tnode *tn, unsigned int i)

Yes, thats great.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/