[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: deferring __fput()
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 13:14 +0100, Al Viro wrote:

> You mean, doing that from RCU callbacks?

Indirectly, yeah, but the RCU callback would schedule it or whatever.

> Still a bad idea, IMO; you will end up with a context
> switch and unpleasantness with delayed user-visible effects of syscalls. With aio we did have
> a delayed execution of fput() anyway; all that has changed there is that we use generic
> mechanism instead of home-grown analog thereof.

Right, the delayed effect is the main concern. The example in the
referred thread was unmount() returning -EBUSY after the last

> I'll need to reread that thread to comment on the specifics (had been too long ago; I don't
> remember the details), but... See Linus' objections to full-async fput() circa this April
> or March. There's a reason why this patchset uses task_work_add() whenever possible.

Ok, I'll try and find that thread, so the advantage of task_work_add()
is that you'll keep the work in the task that caused it wherever
possible, right -- provided its actually sitll around.

If we make fput() deferable in general we'll be sure to grow some 'fun'
cases. So are we going to add a sync against unmount someplace to avoid
these un-expected -EBUSY things?

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-06-25 16:02    [W:0.093 / U:1.212 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site