Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 15 Jun 2013 19:46:57 +0200 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/3] (Was: fput: task_work_add() can fail if the caller has passed exit_task_work()) |
| |
sorry, forgot to mention...
On 06/15, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > OT: I don't think that schedule_work() needs to be inside the locked > > region. Scalability improvements beckon! > > Yeees, I thought about this too. > > Performance-wise this can't really help, this case is unlikely. But > I think this change makes this code a bit simpler, so please see 1/3.
This is on top of fput-task_work_add-can-fail-if-the-caller-has-passed-exit_task_work-fix.patch
it textually depends on the comment block in fput() added by that patch.
Oleg.
| |