提交 0ad66449 编写于 作者: N NeilBrown 提交者: David S. Miller

rhashtable: use cmpxchg() to protect ->future_tbl.

Rather than borrowing one of the bucket locks to
protect ->future_tbl updates, use cmpxchg().
This gives more freedom to change how bucket locking
is implemented.
Acked-by: NHerbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Signed-off-by: NNeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
上级 5af68ef7
......@@ -297,21 +297,14 @@ static int rhashtable_rehash_attach(struct rhashtable *ht,
struct bucket_table *old_tbl,
struct bucket_table *new_tbl)
{
/* Protect future_tbl using the first bucket lock. */
spin_lock_bh(old_tbl->locks);
/* Did somebody beat us to it? */
if (rcu_access_pointer(old_tbl->future_tbl)) {
spin_unlock_bh(old_tbl->locks);
return -EEXIST;
}
/* Make insertions go into the new, empty table right away. Deletions
* and lookups will be attempted in both tables until we synchronize.
* As cmpxchg() provides strong barriers, we do not need
* rcu_assign_pointer().
*/
rcu_assign_pointer(old_tbl->future_tbl, new_tbl);
spin_unlock_bh(old_tbl->locks);
if (cmpxchg(&old_tbl->future_tbl, NULL, new_tbl) != NULL)
return -EEXIST;
return 0;
}
......
Markdown is supported
0% .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
先完成此消息的编辑!
想要评论请 注册