[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Containers: css_put() dilemma
On 7/17/07, Balbir Singh <> wrote:
> That sounds correct. I wonder now if the solution should be some form
> of delegation for deletion of unreferenced containers (HINT: work queue
> or kernel threads).

What a great idea. In fact, that's exactly what the release agent
patch already does.

> > Adding a synchronize_rcu in container_diput() guarantees that the
> > container structure won't be freed while someone may still be
> > accessing it.
> >
> Do we take rcu_read_lock() in css_put() path or use call_rcu() to
> free the container?

Good point, we ought to add rcu_read_lock() (even though it doesn't
actually do anything on architectures other than alpha, right?)

Using call_rcu to do the container kfree rather than synchronize_rcu()
would be a possible future optimization, yes.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-07-17 19:47    [W:0.083 / U:22.324 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site