lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/4] Was: deferring __fput()
    On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 01:30:38AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
    > 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".

    Details, please... .config, root fs type, etc. Failed execve() of init is, unfortunately,
    not too informative...


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-06-29 11:21    [W:0.035 / U:1.612 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site