lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/4] Was: deferring __fput()
From
Date
On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 05:38 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 08:37:21PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Umm... FWIW, my variant circa yesterday is in vfs.git#untested; it seems to survive
> on uml/amd64 at least. I'll look through your patches and see what can be nicked.
> The list removal logics in mine looks really ugly ;-/

Still failing to boot. Fails to boot starting with commit "b24dfa6
switch fput to task_work_add".

Mimi



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-06-29 08:21    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans