-
由 Paul E. McKenney 提交于
The new smp_store_release() function provides better guarantees than did rcu_assign_pointer(), and potentially less overhead on some architectures. The guarantee that smp_store_release() provides that rcu_assign_pointer() does that is obscure, but its lack could cause considerable confusion. This guarantee is illustrated by the following code fragment: struct foo { int a; int b; int c; struct foo *next; }; struct foo foo1; struct foo foo2; struct foo __rcu *foop; ... foo2.a = 1; foo2.b = 2; BUG_ON(foo2.c); rcu_assign_pointer(foop, &foo); ... fp = rcu_dereference(foop); fp.c = 3; The current rcu_assign_pointer() semantics permit the BUG_ON() to trigger because rcu_assign_pointer()'s smp_wmb() is not guaranteed to order prior reads against later writes. This commit therefore upgrades rcu_assign_pointer() from smp_wmb() to smp_store_release() to avoid this counter-intuitive outcome. Signed-off-by: NPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reviewed-by: NJosh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
88c18630