[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/4] Was: deferring __fput()
    On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 08:37:21PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
    > On 06/25, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
    > >
    > > And if it always takes ->pi_lock we do not need the new PF_ or something
    > > else, exit_task_work() can set task->task_works = NO_MORE under ->pi_lock
    > > (task_work_run() can check PF_EXITING), and task_work_add() ensures that
    > > task_works != NO_MORE.
    > >
    > > What do you think?
    > It is not clear to me if you agree or not. So I am simply sending the
    > patches I have.
    > Feel free to ignore or re-do.
    > Seriously, why should we add 2 pointers into task_struct? Sure, this
    > is minor, but still... But perhaps task_work.c should not play tricks
    > with the circular list, task_work_run() can reverse the list as you
    > initially suggested.
    > Also, I am not sure about "define rcu_head callback_head", this series
    > doesn't do this. But again, up to you.

    Umm... FWIW, my variant circa yesterday is in vfs.git#untested; it seems to survive
    on uml/amd64 at least. I'll look through your patches and see what can be nicked.
    The list removal logics in mine looks really ugly ;-/

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-06-28 07:22    [W:0.025 / U:31.520 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site