diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/kref.txt | 211 |
1 files changed, 211 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/kref.txt b/Documentation/kref.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..96d8f56 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/kref.txt @@ -0,0 +1,211 @@ + +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. + +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. + +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, 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 locks or semaphores. For +instance: + +static DECLARE_MUTEX(sem); +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; + down(&sem); + if (!list_empty(&q)) { + entry = container_of(q.next, struct my_q_entry, link); + kref_get(&entry->refcount); + } + up(&sem); + 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) +{ + down(&sem); + kref_put(&entry->refcount, release_entry); + up(&sem); +} + +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) +{ + down(&sem); + if (kref_put(&entry->refcount, release_entry)) { + list_del(&entry->link); + up(&sem); + kfree(entry); + } else + up(&sem); +} + +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. + + +Corey Minyard <minyard@acm.org> + +A lot of this was lifted from Greg KH's OLS presentation on krefs. |