[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: deferring __fput()
    On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 02:03:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    > On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 21:57 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
    > > 3) at that point task_work is equal in size (and layout, BTW) to rcu_head. So we can add it
    > > into the same union in struct file where we already have list_head and rcu_head. No space
    > > eaten up. fput() would, once the counter reaches 0, remove the file from list (the only
    > > place walking that list skips the ones with zero refcount anyway) and, if we are in a normal
    > > process, use task_work_add() to have __fput() done to it. If we are in kernel thread or
    > > atomic context, just move the sucker to global list and use schedule_work() to have said
    > > list emptied and everything in it fed to __fput().
    > So we're now Ok with doing fput() async?
    > Last time I remember this coming up people thought this wasn't such a
    > hot idea.

    You mean, doing that from RCU callbacks? 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.

    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.

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-06-25 15:01    [W:0.034 / U:9.444 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site