[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061013143359.GK4141@kvack.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:33:59 -0400
From: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
To: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@...el.com>
Cc: 'Zach Brown' <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
'Suparna Bhattacharya' <suparna@...ibm.com>,
"Lahaise, Benjamin C" <benjamin.c.lahaise@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 'linux-aio' <linux-aio@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] remove redundant kioctx->users ref count
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 04:54:46PM -0700, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> @@ -1015,9 +1010,6 @@ put_rq:
> if (waitqueue_active(&ctx->wait))
> wake_up(&ctx->wait);
>
> - if (ret)
> - put_ioctx(ctx);
> -
> return ret;
> }
This part makes me worry -- at this point we no longer have anything
pinning the ioctx, yet we touch ->wait after dropping the lock. The
only way around this is if rcu is introduced in the final free of an
ioctx to ensure the structure remains around for a sufficient grace
period.
-ben
--
"Time is of no importance, Mr. President, only life is important."
Don't Email: <dont@...ck.org>.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists