|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,216 @@
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+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 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
|
|
|
+and:
|
|
|
+ http://www.kroah.com/linux/talks/ols_2004_kref_talk/
|
|
|
+
|
Linus Torvalds