|author||Paul E. McKenney <email@example.com>||2006-02-01 03:06:42 -0800|
|committer||Linus Torvalds <firstname.lastname@example.org>||2006-02-01 08:53:25 -0800|
[PATCH] RCU documentation fixes (January 2006 update)
Updates to in-tree RCU documentation based on comments over the past few months. Signed-off-by: "Paul E. McKenney" <email@example.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <firstname.lastname@example.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <email@example.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/RCU/rcuref.txt')
1 files changed, 15 insertions, 16 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/rcuref.txt b/Documentation/RCU/rcuref.txt
index 3f60db41b2f0..451de2ad8329 100644
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
-Refcounter design for elements of lists/arrays protected by RCU.
+Reference-count design for elements of lists/arrays protected by RCU.
-Refcounting on elements of lists which are protected by traditional
-reader/writer spinlocks or semaphores are straight forward as in:
+Reference counting on elements of lists which are protected by traditional
+reader/writer spinlocks or semaphores are straightforward:
@@ -28,12 +28,12 @@ release_referenced() delete()
-If this list/array is made lock free using rcu as in changing the
-write_lock in add() and delete() to spin_lock and changing read_lock
+If this list/array is made lock free using RCU as in changing the
+write_lock() in add() and delete() to spin_lock and changing read_lock
in search_and_reference to rcu_read_lock(), the atomic_get in
search_and_reference could potentially hold reference to an element which
-has already been deleted from the list/array. atomic_inc_not_zero takes
-care of this scenario. search_and_reference should look as;
+has already been deleted from the list/array. Use atomic_inc_not_zero()
+in this scenario as follows:
@@ -51,17 +51,16 @@ add() search_and_reference()
- atomic_dec(&el->rc, relfunc) ...
- ... delete_element
+ if (atomic_dec_and_test(&el->rc)) ...
+ call_rcu(&el->head, el_free); delete_element
+ ... write_unlock(&list_lock);
-Sometimes, reference to the element need to be obtained in the
-update (write) stream. In such cases, atomic_inc_not_zero might be an
-overkill since the spinlock serialising list updates are held. atomic_inc
-is to be used in such cases.
+Sometimes, a reference to the element needs to be obtained in the
+update (write) stream. In such cases, atomic_inc_not_zero() might be
+overkill, since we hold the update-side spinlock. One might instead
+use atomic_inc() in such cases.