[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1skr7hphh.fsf@frodo.ebiederm.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:58:34 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Benjamin Thery <benjamin.thery@...l.net>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: sysfs: tagged directories not merged completely yet
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> writes:
> Hmmm... I'm probably missing something (and being lazy) but how does it
> guarantee the validity of the next pointer after dropping the rcu lock?
So in next_tid which is essentially what we would be doing.
I grab the rcu_lock. Check something to see if the task I have
is still on the list, if it is then I know the next is valid until
the end of the rcu grace period. Then I follow the next pointer,
and grab the lock again.
rcu is pain to get right but at least it is localized pain.
>> I'm still not certain how we can get the lock ordering so it doesn't
>> cause us problems. I will look at revalidation and what the other
>> distributed filesystems are doing and see if that might work. If it
>> doesn't we need refactor the VFS locking.
>
> Yeah, if we can make sysfs behave like other distributed filesystems, it
> would be great. :-)
I don't think we can make it work but I think we need to exhaust that
avenue before saying that the VFS has to change.
Eric
--
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