doc/RCU: fix pseudocode in rcuref.txt
atomic_inc_not_zero(v) return 0 if *v = 0.
use spin_lock instead of write_lock for update lock.
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/rcuref.txt b/Documentation/RCU/rcuref.txt
index 451de2a..4202ad0 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/rcuref.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/rcuref.txt
@@ -29,9 +29,9 @@
}
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
+write_lock() in add() and delete() to spin_lock() and changing read_lock()
+in search_and_reference() to rcu_read_lock(), the atomic_inc() in
+search_and_reference() could potentially hold reference to an element which
has already been deleted from the list/array. Use atomic_inc_not_zero()
in this scenario as follows:
@@ -40,20 +40,20 @@
{ {
alloc_object rcu_read_lock();
... search_for_element
- atomic_set(&el->rc, 1); if (atomic_inc_not_zero(&el->rc)) {
- write_lock(&list_lock); rcu_read_unlock();
+ atomic_set(&el->rc, 1); if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&el->rc)) {
+ spin_lock(&list_lock); rcu_read_unlock();
return FAIL;
add_element }
... ...
- write_unlock(&list_lock); rcu_read_unlock();
+ spin_unlock(&list_lock); rcu_read_unlock();
} }
3. 4.
release_referenced() delete()
{ {
- ... write_lock(&list_lock);
+ ... spin_lock(&list_lock);
if (atomic_dec_and_test(&el->rc)) ...
call_rcu(&el->head, el_free); delete_element
- ... write_unlock(&list_lock);
+ ... spin_unlock(&list_lock);
} ...
if (atomic_dec_and_test(&el->rc))
call_rcu(&el->head, el_free);