[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:0.024 / U:5.552 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site