[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Subject[PATCH 0/4] Was: deferring __fput()
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.


 \ /
  Last update: 2012-06-27 21:21    [W:0.123 / U:16.008 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site