[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:0.044 / U:54.312 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site