From ded5e5ed2f3348ba2f9a319c6497e46c22850e97 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 10:46:55 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Update call_rcu() usage, add synchronize_rcu() Reported-by: Kyle Hubert Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett --- Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl b/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl index e6cc57460212..ed64d220baf2 100644 --- a/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl +++ b/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl @@ -1645,7 +1645,9 @@ the amount of locking which needs to be done. all the readers who were traversing the list when we deleted the element are finished. We use call_rcu() to register a callback which will actually destroy the object once - the readers are finished. + all pre-existing readers are finished. Alternatively, + synchronize_rcu() may be used to block until + all pre-existing are finished. But how does Read Copy Update know when the readers are @@ -1714,7 +1716,7 @@ the amount of locking which needs to be done. - object_put(obj); + list_del_rcu(&obj->list); cache_num--; -+ call_rcu(&obj->rcu, cache_delete_rcu, obj); ++ call_rcu(&obj->rcu, cache_delete_rcu); } /* Must be holding cache_lock */ -- 2.20.1