[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:0.109 / U:2.312 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site