Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 02:41:41 +0000 From: Darren Reed <darrenr@hub.freebsd.org> To: Brian Feldman <green@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_proc.c Message-ID: <20040610024141.GA59816@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20040609164538.GB15285@green.homeunix.org> References: <55929.1086798000@critter.freebsd.dk> <20040609092423.N85944@root.org> <20040609164538.GB15285@green.homeunix.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 12:45:38PM -0400, Brian Feldman wrote:
>
> That's not a way to handle that case. The way to handle that case
> in general is to make it impossible to find a reference the object
> when the refcount hits zero.
>
> LOCK(foo_list)
> > > LOCK(foo->lock)
> > > i = --foo->refcount;
> if (i == 0)
> remove(foo_list, foo);
> > > UNLOCK(foo->lock)
> UNLOCK(foo_list)
> > > if (i == 0)
> > > destroy(foo);
Just to add my $0.02 on this thread, the above code is correct.
you could put the destroy in the critical section but those parts
of the code are meant to be small and tight.
In my experience, the way to do this for performance is to use
read-write locks for locking on the list. So, for example, you
would have:
new()
{
create and initialise new foo
foo->refcount = 2
WRITE_LOCK(list)
add_to_list(foo)
UNLOCK(list)
return foo
}
search()
{
READ_LOCK(list)
find foo
if (foo is found)
LOCK(foo->lock)
foo->refcount++;
UNLOCK(foo->lock)
UNLOCK(list)
return foo;
}
deref(foo)
{
LOCK(foo->lock)
foo->refcount--
if (foo->refcount == 0)
foo->refcount++
UNLOCK(foo->lock)
delete(foo)
else
UNLOCK(foo->lock)
}
delete(foo)
{
WRITE_LOCK(list)
if (foo_on_list)
remove_from_list(foo)
LOCK(foo->lock)
foo->refcount--
if (foo->refcount == 0)
destroy(foo)
else
UNLOCK(foo->lock)
UNLOCK(list)
}
Why use read/write locks? It allows concurrent searching and use of
the object foo with little penalty - it does, however, make new/delete
operations slower but what occurs more - search or new/delete ?
Why is there a "refcount++" after checking "refcount == 0" ?
Because you need to give up foo->lock and in this code, you
don't have a lock on the list to stop another finding it and
thereby doing a refcount++.
This is a more complex code model because the locking is more
detached from the operations. It also distinguishes between
deref() and delete(), although delete() can be used without
calling deref(). It allows the object "foo" to be used safely
without a lock on list or foo.
The race between search() incrementing the refcount and the
delete() free'ing the object is eliminated by the list lock.
Technically you shouldn't need to have foo->lock for remove_from_list
because the list modifications should all be exclusive anyway (in
this case, the write lock provides it.)
You should only ever have code entering both deref() and delete()
simultaneously if refcount == 2.
Why does new() set refcount to 2 ? Because it returns a pointer
to the object for the calling code to use and there's a reference
to it on the list. When the calling code finishes using it, it
must call deref().
If you need to destroy the mutex in a special way then this is done
with destroy().
Questions/comments ?
Darren
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040610024141.GA59816>