lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [patch] fs: aio fix rcu lookup
Date
Nick Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:46 AM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>>> Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> writes:
>>>
>>>>  But there's the second race I describe making it possible
>>>> for new IO to be created after io_destroy() has waited for all IO to
>>>> finish...
>>>
>>> Can't that be solved by introducing memory barriers around the accesses
>>> to ->dead?
>>
>> Upon further consideration, I don't think so.
>>
>> Given the options, I think adding the synchronize rcu to the io_destroy
>> path is the best way forward.  You're already waiting for a bunch of
>> queued I/O to finish, so there is no guarantee that you're going to
>> finish that call quickly.
>
> I think synchronize_rcu() is not something to sprinkle around outside
> very slow paths. It can be done without synchronize_rcu.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Do you mean to imply that
io_destroy is not a very slow path? Because it is. I prefer a solution
that doesn't re-architecht things in order to solve a theoretical issue
that's never been observed.

Cheers,
Jeff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-01-19 21:35    [W:0.999 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site