[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6599ad830707171044u38c0a940r12d2bc80b475ead4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:44:08 -0700
From: "Paul (宝瑠) Menage"
<menage@...gle.com>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, "Pavel Emelianov" <xemul@...ru>,
"linux kernel mailing list" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Paul Jackson" <pj@....com>,
"Linux Containers" <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Containers: css_put() dilemma
On 7/17/07, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> That sounds correct. I wonder now if the solution should be some form
> of delegation for deletion of unreferenced containers (HINT: work queue
> or kernel threads).
What a great idea. In fact, that's exactly what the release agent
patch already does.
>
> > Adding a synchronize_rcu in container_diput() guarantees that the
> > container structure won't be freed while someone may still be
> > accessing it.
> >
>
> Do we take rcu_read_lock() in css_put() path or use call_rcu() to
> free the container?
Good point, we ought to add rcu_read_lock() (even though it doesn't
actually do anything on architectures other than alpha, right?)
Using call_rcu to do the container kfree rather than synchronize_rcu()
would be a possible future optimization, yes.
Paul
-
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