|  | .. _array_rcu_doc: | 
|  |  | 
|  | Using RCU to Protect Read-Mostly Arrays | 
|  | ======================================= | 
|  |  | 
|  | Although RCU is more commonly used to protect linked lists, it can | 
|  | also be used to protect arrays.  Three situations are as follows: | 
|  |  | 
|  | 1.  :ref:`Hash Tables <hash_tables>` | 
|  |  | 
|  | 2.  :ref:`Static Arrays <static_arrays>` | 
|  |  | 
|  | 3.  :ref:`Resizable Arrays <resizable_arrays>` | 
|  |  | 
|  | Each of these three situations involves an RCU-protected pointer to an | 
|  | array that is separately indexed.  It might be tempting to consider use | 
|  | of RCU to instead protect the index into an array, however, this use | 
|  | case is **not** supported.  The problem with RCU-protected indexes into | 
|  | arrays is that compilers can play way too many optimization games with | 
|  | integers, which means that the rules governing handling of these indexes | 
|  | are far more trouble than they are worth.  If RCU-protected indexes into | 
|  | arrays prove to be particularly valuable (which they have not thus far), | 
|  | explicit cooperation from the compiler will be required to permit them | 
|  | to be safely used. | 
|  |  | 
|  | That aside, each of the three RCU-protected pointer situations are | 
|  | described in the following sections. | 
|  |  | 
|  | .. _hash_tables: | 
|  |  | 
|  | Situation 1: Hash Tables | 
|  | ------------------------ | 
|  |  | 
|  | Hash tables are often implemented as an array, where each array entry | 
|  | has a linked-list hash chain.  Each hash chain can be protected by RCU | 
|  | as described in the listRCU.txt document.  This approach also applies | 
|  | to other array-of-list situations, such as radix trees. | 
|  |  | 
|  | .. _static_arrays: | 
|  |  | 
|  | Situation 2: Static Arrays | 
|  | -------------------------- | 
|  |  | 
|  | Static arrays, where the data (rather than a pointer to the data) is | 
|  | located in each array element, and where the array is never resized, | 
|  | have not been used with RCU.  Rik van Riel recommends using seqlock in | 
|  | this situation, which would also have minimal read-side overhead as long | 
|  | as updates are rare. | 
|  |  | 
|  | Quick Quiz: | 
|  | Why is it so important that updates be rare when using seqlock? | 
|  |  | 
|  | :ref:`Answer to Quick Quiz <answer_quick_quiz_seqlock>` | 
|  |  | 
|  | .. _resizable_arrays: | 
|  |  | 
|  | Situation 3: Resizable Arrays | 
|  | ------------------------------ | 
|  |  | 
|  | Use of RCU for resizable arrays is demonstrated by the grow_ary() | 
|  | function formerly used by the System V IPC code.  The array is used | 
|  | to map from semaphore, message-queue, and shared-memory IDs to the data | 
|  | structure that represents the corresponding IPC construct.  The grow_ary() | 
|  | function does not acquire any locks; instead its caller must hold the | 
|  | ids->sem semaphore. | 
|  |  | 
|  | The grow_ary() function, shown below, does some limit checks, allocates a | 
|  | new ipc_id_ary, copies the old to the new portion of the new, initializes | 
|  | the remainder of the new, updates the ids->entries pointer to point to | 
|  | the new array, and invokes ipc_rcu_putref() to free up the old array. | 
|  | Note that rcu_assign_pointer() is used to update the ids->entries pointer, | 
|  | which includes any memory barriers required on whatever architecture | 
|  | you are running on:: | 
|  |  | 
|  | static int grow_ary(struct ipc_ids* ids, int newsize) | 
|  | { | 
|  | struct ipc_id_ary* new; | 
|  | struct ipc_id_ary* old; | 
|  | int i; | 
|  | int size = ids->entries->size; | 
|  |  | 
|  | if(newsize > IPCMNI) | 
|  | newsize = IPCMNI; | 
|  | if(newsize <= size) | 
|  | return newsize; | 
|  |  | 
|  | new = ipc_rcu_alloc(sizeof(struct kern_ipc_perm *)*newsize + | 
|  | sizeof(struct ipc_id_ary)); | 
|  | if(new == NULL) | 
|  | return size; | 
|  | new->size = newsize; | 
|  | memcpy(new->p, ids->entries->p, | 
|  | sizeof(struct kern_ipc_perm *)*size + | 
|  | sizeof(struct ipc_id_ary)); | 
|  | for(i=size;i<newsize;i++) { | 
|  | new->p[i] = NULL; | 
|  | } | 
|  | old = ids->entries; | 
|  |  | 
|  | /* | 
|  | * Use rcu_assign_pointer() to make sure the memcpyed | 
|  | * contents of the new array are visible before the new | 
|  | * array becomes visible. | 
|  | */ | 
|  | rcu_assign_pointer(ids->entries, new); | 
|  |  | 
|  | ipc_rcu_putref(old); | 
|  | return newsize; | 
|  | } | 
|  |  | 
|  | The ipc_rcu_putref() function decrements the array's reference count | 
|  | and then, if the reference count has dropped to zero, uses call_rcu() | 
|  | to free the array after a grace period has elapsed. | 
|  |  | 
|  | The array is traversed by the ipc_lock() function.  This function | 
|  | indexes into the array under the protection of rcu_read_lock(), | 
|  | using rcu_dereference() to pick up the pointer to the array so | 
|  | that it may later safely be dereferenced -- memory barriers are | 
|  | required on the Alpha CPU.  Since the size of the array is stored | 
|  | with the array itself, there can be no array-size mismatches, so | 
|  | a simple check suffices.  The pointer to the structure corresponding | 
|  | to the desired IPC object is placed in "out", with NULL indicating | 
|  | a non-existent entry.  After acquiring "out->lock", the "out->deleted" | 
|  | flag indicates whether the IPC object is in the process of being | 
|  | deleted, and, if not, the pointer is returned:: | 
|  |  | 
|  | struct kern_ipc_perm* ipc_lock(struct ipc_ids* ids, int id) | 
|  | { | 
|  | struct kern_ipc_perm* out; | 
|  | int lid = id % SEQ_MULTIPLIER; | 
|  | struct ipc_id_ary* entries; | 
|  |  | 
|  | rcu_read_lock(); | 
|  | entries = rcu_dereference(ids->entries); | 
|  | if(lid >= entries->size) { | 
|  | rcu_read_unlock(); | 
|  | return NULL; | 
|  | } | 
|  | out = entries->p[lid]; | 
|  | if(out == NULL) { | 
|  | rcu_read_unlock(); | 
|  | return NULL; | 
|  | } | 
|  | spin_lock(&out->lock); | 
|  |  | 
|  | /* ipc_rmid() may have already freed the ID while ipc_lock | 
|  | * was spinning: here verify that the structure is still valid | 
|  | */ | 
|  | if (out->deleted) { | 
|  | spin_unlock(&out->lock); | 
|  | rcu_read_unlock(); | 
|  | return NULL; | 
|  | } | 
|  | return out; | 
|  | } | 
|  |  | 
|  | .. _answer_quick_quiz_seqlock: | 
|  |  | 
|  | Answer to Quick Quiz: | 
|  | Why is it so important that updates be rare when using seqlock? | 
|  |  | 
|  | The reason that it is important that updates be rare when | 
|  | using seqlock is that frequent updates can livelock readers. | 
|  | One way to avoid this problem is to assign a seqlock for | 
|  | each array entry rather than to the entire array. |