diff options
Diffstat (limited to '')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/kref.txt | 319 |
1 files changed, 319 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/kref.txt b/Documentation/kref.txt new file mode 100644 index 000000000..3af384156 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/kref.txt @@ -0,0 +1,319 @@ +=================================================== +Adding reference counters (krefs) to kernel objects +=================================================== + +:Author: Corey Minyard <minyard@acm.org> +:Author: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com> + +A lot of this was lifted from Greg Kroah-Hartman's 2004 OLS paper and +presentation on krefs, which can be found at: + + - http://www.kroah.com/linux/talks/ols_2004_kref_paper/Reprint-Kroah-Hartman-OLS2004.pdf + - http://www.kroah.com/linux/talks/ols_2004_kref_talk/ + +Introduction +============ + +krefs allow you to add reference counters to your objects. If you +have objects that are used in multiple places and passed around, and +you don't have refcounts, your code is almost certainly broken. If +you want refcounts, krefs are the way to go. + +To use a kref, add one to your data structures like:: + + struct my_data + { + . + . + struct kref refcount; + . + . + }; + +The kref can occur anywhere within the data structure. + +Initialization +============== + +You must initialize the kref after you allocate it. To do this, call +kref_init as so:: + + struct my_data *data; + + data = kmalloc(sizeof(*data), GFP_KERNEL); + if (!data) + return -ENOMEM; + kref_init(&data->refcount); + +This sets the refcount in the kref to 1. + +Kref rules +========== + +Once you have an initialized kref, you must follow the following +rules: + +1) If you make a non-temporary copy of a pointer, especially if + it can be passed to another thread of execution, you must + increment the refcount with kref_get() before passing it off:: + + kref_get(&data->refcount); + + If you already have a valid pointer to a kref-ed structure (the + refcount cannot go to zero) you may do this without a lock. + +2) When you are done with a pointer, you must call kref_put():: + + kref_put(&data->refcount, data_release); + + If this is the last reference to the pointer, the release + routine will be called. If the code never tries to get + a valid pointer to a kref-ed structure without already + holding a valid pointer, it is safe to do this without + a lock. + +3) If the code attempts to gain a reference to a kref-ed structure + without already holding a valid pointer, it must serialize access + where a kref_put() cannot occur during the kref_get(), and the + structure must remain valid during the kref_get(). + +For example, if you allocate some data and then pass it to another +thread to process:: + + void data_release(struct kref *ref) + { + struct my_data *data = container_of(ref, struct my_data, refcount); + kfree(data); + } + + void more_data_handling(void *cb_data) + { + struct my_data *data = cb_data; + . + . do stuff with data here + . + kref_put(&data->refcount, data_release); + } + + int my_data_handler(void) + { + int rv = 0; + struct my_data *data; + struct task_struct *task; + data = kmalloc(sizeof(*data), GFP_KERNEL); + if (!data) + return -ENOMEM; + kref_init(&data->refcount); + + kref_get(&data->refcount); + task = kthread_run(more_data_handling, data, "more_data_handling"); + if (task == ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM)) { + rv = -ENOMEM; + kref_put(&data->refcount, data_release); + goto out; + } + + . + . do stuff with data here + . + out: + kref_put(&data->refcount, data_release); + return rv; + } + +This way, it doesn't matter what order the two threads handle the +data, the kref_put() handles knowing when the data is not referenced +any more and releasing it. The kref_get() does not require a lock, +since we already have a valid pointer that we own a refcount for. The +put needs no lock because nothing tries to get the data without +already holding a pointer. + +Note that the "before" in rule 1 is very important. You should never +do something like:: + + task = kthread_run(more_data_handling, data, "more_data_handling"); + if (task == ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM)) { + rv = -ENOMEM; + goto out; + } else + /* BAD BAD BAD - get is after the handoff */ + kref_get(&data->refcount); + +Don't assume you know what you are doing and use the above construct. +First of all, you may not know what you are doing. Second, you may +know what you are doing (there are some situations where locking is +involved where the above may be legal) but someone else who doesn't +know what they are doing may change the code or copy the code. It's +bad style. Don't do it. + +There are some situations where you can optimize the gets and puts. +For instance, if you are done with an object and enqueuing it for +something else or passing it off to something else, there is no reason +to do a get then a put:: + + /* Silly extra get and put */ + kref_get(&obj->ref); + enqueue(obj); + kref_put(&obj->ref, obj_cleanup); + +Just do the enqueue. A comment about this is always welcome:: + + enqueue(obj); + /* We are done with obj, so we pass our refcount off + to the queue. DON'T TOUCH obj AFTER HERE! */ + +The last rule (rule 3) is the nastiest one to handle. Say, for +instance, you have a list of items that are each kref-ed, and you wish +to get the first one. You can't just pull the first item off the list +and kref_get() it. That violates rule 3 because you are not already +holding a valid pointer. You must add a mutex (or some other lock). +For instance:: + + static DEFINE_MUTEX(mutex); + static LIST_HEAD(q); + struct my_data + { + struct kref refcount; + struct list_head link; + }; + + static struct my_data *get_entry() + { + struct my_data *entry = NULL; + mutex_lock(&mutex); + if (!list_empty(&q)) { + entry = container_of(q.next, struct my_data, link); + kref_get(&entry->refcount); + } + mutex_unlock(&mutex); + return entry; + } + + static void release_entry(struct kref *ref) + { + struct my_data *entry = container_of(ref, struct my_data, refcount); + + list_del(&entry->link); + kfree(entry); + } + + static void put_entry(struct my_data *entry) + { + mutex_lock(&mutex); + kref_put(&entry->refcount, release_entry); + mutex_unlock(&mutex); + } + +The kref_put() return value is useful if you do not want to hold the +lock during the whole release operation. Say you didn't want to call +kfree() with the lock held in the example above (since it is kind of +pointless to do so). You could use kref_put() as follows:: + + static void release_entry(struct kref *ref) + { + /* All work is done after the return from kref_put(). */ + } + + static void put_entry(struct my_data *entry) + { + mutex_lock(&mutex); + if (kref_put(&entry->refcount, release_entry)) { + list_del(&entry->link); + mutex_unlock(&mutex); + kfree(entry); + } else + mutex_unlock(&mutex); + } + +This is really more useful if you have to call other routines as part +of the free operations that could take a long time or might claim the +same lock. Note that doing everything in the release routine is still +preferred as it is a little neater. + +The above example could also be optimized using kref_get_unless_zero() in +the following way:: + + static struct my_data *get_entry() + { + struct my_data *entry = NULL; + mutex_lock(&mutex); + if (!list_empty(&q)) { + entry = container_of(q.next, struct my_data, link); + if (!kref_get_unless_zero(&entry->refcount)) + entry = NULL; + } + mutex_unlock(&mutex); + return entry; + } + + static void release_entry(struct kref *ref) + { + struct my_data *entry = container_of(ref, struct my_data, refcount); + + mutex_lock(&mutex); + list_del(&entry->link); + mutex_unlock(&mutex); + kfree(entry); + } + + static void put_entry(struct my_data *entry) + { + kref_put(&entry->refcount, release_entry); + } + +Which is useful to remove the mutex lock around kref_put() in put_entry(), but +it's important that kref_get_unless_zero is enclosed in the same critical +section that finds the entry in the lookup table, +otherwise kref_get_unless_zero may reference already freed memory. +Note that it is illegal to use kref_get_unless_zero without checking its +return value. If you are sure (by already having a valid pointer) that +kref_get_unless_zero() will return true, then use kref_get() instead. + +Krefs and RCU +============= + +The function kref_get_unless_zero also makes it possible to use rcu +locking for lookups in the above example:: + + struct my_data + { + struct rcu_head rhead; + . + struct kref refcount; + . + . + }; + + static struct my_data *get_entry_rcu() + { + struct my_data *entry = NULL; + rcu_read_lock(); + if (!list_empty(&q)) { + entry = container_of(q.next, struct my_data, link); + if (!kref_get_unless_zero(&entry->refcount)) + entry = NULL; + } + rcu_read_unlock(); + return entry; + } + + static void release_entry_rcu(struct kref *ref) + { + struct my_data *entry = container_of(ref, struct my_data, refcount); + + mutex_lock(&mutex); + list_del_rcu(&entry->link); + mutex_unlock(&mutex); + kfree_rcu(entry, rhead); + } + + static void put_entry(struct my_data *entry) + { + kref_put(&entry->refcount, release_entry_rcu); + } + +But note that the struct kref member needs to remain in valid memory for a +rcu grace period after release_entry_rcu was called. That can be accomplished +by using kfree_rcu(entry, rhead) as done above, or by calling synchronize_rcu() +before using kfree, but note that synchronize_rcu() may sleep for a +substantial amount of time. |