Skip to content

K
Kernel

openeuler / Kernel
1 年多 前同步成功

通知 8
Star 0
Fork 0
K
Kernel
切换分支/标签
  1. 25 5月, 2012 4 次提交
  3. 23 5月, 2012 9 次提交
  5. 11 5月, 2012 1 次提交
  7. 10 5月, 2012 3 次提交
  9. 08 5月, 2012 1 次提交
  11. 05 5月, 2012 2 次提交
    • L
      seqlock: add 'raw_seqcount_begin()' function · 4f988f15
      由 Linus Torvalds 提交于 
      The normal read_seqcount_begin() function will wait for any current
writers to exit their critical region by looping until the sequence
count is even.

That "wait for sequence count to stabilize" is the right thing to do if
the read-locker will just retry the whole operation on contention: no
point in doing a potentially expensive reader sequence if we know at the
beginning that we'll just end up re-doing it all.

HOWEVER.  Some users don't actually retry the operation, but instead
will abort and do the operation with proper locking.  So the sequence
count case may be the optimistic quick case, but in the presense of
writers you may want to do full locking in order to guarantee forward
progress.  The prime example of this would be the RCU name lookup.

And in that case, you may well be better off without the "retry early",
and are in a rush to instead get to the failure handling.  Thus this
"raw" interface that just returns the sequence number without testing it
- it just forces the low bit to zero so that read_seqcount_retry() will
always fail such a "active concurrent writer" scenario.
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      4f988f15
    • L
      Fix __read_seqcount_begin() to use ACCESS_ONCE for sequence value read · 2f624278
      由 Linus Torvalds 提交于 
      We really need to use a ACCESS_ONCE() on the sequence value read in
__read_seqcount_begin(), because otherwise the compiler might end up
reloading the value in between the test and the return of it.  As a
result, it might end up returning an odd value (which means that a write
is in progress).

If the reader is then fast enough that that odd value is still the
current one when the read_seqcount_retry() is done, we might end up with
a "successful" read sequence, even despite the concurrent write being
active.

In practice this probably never really happens - there just isn't
anything else going on around the read of the sequence count, and the
common case is that we end up having a read barrier immediately
afterwards.

So the code sequence in which gcc might decide to reaload from memory is
small, and there's no reason to believe it would ever actually do the
reload.  But if the compiler ever were to decide to do so, it would be
incredibly annoying to debug.  Let's just make sure.

Cc: stable@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      2f624278
  13. 02 5月, 2012 5 次提交
  15. 01 5月, 2012 3 次提交
  17. 30 4月, 2012 1 次提交
    • L
      pipes: add a "packetized pipe" mode for writing · 9883035a
      由 Linus Torvalds 提交于 
      The actual internal pipe implementation is already really about
individual packets (called "pipe buffers"), and this simply exposes that
as a special packetized mode.

When we are in the packetized mode (marked by O_DIRECT as suggested by
Alan Cox), a write() on a pipe will not merge the new data with previous
writes, so each write will get a pipe buffer of its own.  The pipe
buffer is then marked with the PIPE_BUF_FLAG_PACKET flag, which in turn
will tell the reader side to break the read at that boundary (and throw
away any partial packet contents that do not fit in the read buffer).

End result: as long as you do writes less than PIPE_BUF in size (so that
the pipe doesn't have to split them up), you can now treat the pipe as a
packet interface, where each read() system call will read one packet at
a time.  You can just use a sufficiently big read buffer (PIPE_BUF is
sufficient, since bigger than that doesn't guarantee atomicity anyway),
and the return value of the read() will naturally give you the size of
the packet.

NOTE! We do not support zero-sized packets, and zero-sized reads and
writes to a pipe continue to be no-ops.  Also note that big packets will
currently be split at write time, but that the size at which that
happens is not really specified (except that it's bigger than PIPE_BUF).
Currently that limit is the system page size, but we might want to
explicitly support bigger packets some day.

The main user for this is going to be the autofs packet interface,
allowing us to stop having to care so deeply about exact packet sizes
(which have had bugs with 32/64-bit compatibility modes).  But user
space can create packetized pipes with "pipe2(fd, O_DIRECT)", which will
fail with an EINVAL on kernels that do not support this interface.
Tested-by: NMichael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
Cc: Thomas Meyer <thomas@m3y3r.de>
Cc: stable@kernel.org  # needed for systemd/autofs interaction fix
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      9883035a
  19. 28 4月, 2012 11 次提交