Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Jun 2012 05:38:36 +0100 | From | Al Viro <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/4] Was: deferring __fput() |
| |
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 ;-/
| |