[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: deferring __fput()
    On 06/24, Al Viro wrote:
    > BTW, I suspect that we really want to move exit_task_work() down past the
    > calls of exit_mm()/exit_files()

    Yes, probably. But I do not know how far we should move it.

    > (and lose the PF_EXITING check in
    > task_work_add(), making that ordering responsibility of callers).

    No, we can't do this?

    OK, perhaps we can check something else instead of PF_EXITING.
    But somehow we should ensuree that if task_work_add(twork) succeeds,
    then twork->func() will be called. IOW, if task_work_add() races with
    the exiting task, it should not succeed after exit_task_work().

    > I'm not 100% sure about that one - if you have planned task_work users
    > relying on e.g. task->mm still being there when callback runs,

    No, I didn't.


     \ /
      Last update: 2012-06-24 18:21    [W:0.024 / U:2.032 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site