lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: deferring __fput()
From
Date
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.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/1/5/208





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-06-25 14:41    [W:0.153 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site