Re: [LIST] Add missing rcu_dereference on first element

[Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 07:03:25PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/list.h b/include/linux/list.h
> > --- a/include/linux/list.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/list.h
> > @@ -442,12 +442,15 @@ static inline void list_splice_init(stru
> >   * as long as the traversal is guarded by rcu_read_lock().
> >   */
> >  #define list_for_each_rcu(pos, head) \
> > -	for (pos = (head)->next; prefetch(pos->next), pos != (head); \
> > -        	pos = rcu_dereference(pos->next))
> > +	for (pos = (head)->next; \
> > +		pos = rcu_dereference(pos), \
> > +			prefetch(pos->next), pos != (head); \
> > +        	pos = pos->next)
> 
> Why not something like the following?  Seems a bit simpler to me.
> 
> #define list_for_each_rcu(pos, head) \
> 	for (pos = rcu_dereference((head)->next); \
> 		prefetch(pos->next), pos != (head); \
>         	pos = rcu_dereference(pos->next))

In this case your version is indeed more concise.  However, in most of
the other for_each macros having it in the loop conditional looks more
natural.

So in order to be consistent throughout list.h, I'd like to keep the
rcu_dereference in the loop conditional.

> > @@ -492,8 +496,10 @@ static inline void list_splice_init(stru
> >   * as long as the traversal is guarded by rcu_read_lock().
> >   */
> >  #define list_for_each_continue_rcu(pos, head) \
> > -	for ((pos) = (pos)->next; prefetch((pos)->next), (pos) != (head); \
> > -        	(pos) = rcu_dereference((pos)->next))
> > +	for ((pos) = (pos)->next; \
> > +		(pos) = rcu_dereference((pos)), \
> > +			prefetch((pos)->next), (pos) != (head); \
> > +        	(pos) = (pos)->next)
> 
> The above hurts my head -- childhood trauma due to having to use a
> FORTRAN compiler that required "I=I" at odd intervals in order to
> generate correct code...  How about the following?
> 
> #define list_for_each_continue_rcu(pos, head) \
> 	for ((pos) = (pos)->next; \
> 		prefetch(rcu_dereference(pos)->next), (pos) != (head); \
>         	(pos) = (pos)->next)

I chose to keep it out of prefetch because normally the argument to
prefetch does not have any side-effects.  Even though today's prefetch
is an inline function which does respect side-effects, there is always
a possibility that someone somewhere might decide to implement prefetch
as a macro.

Besides, the expression

i = foo(i)

where foo has side-effects is pretty normal.

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/