[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081229152732.GH496@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:27:32 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, bfields@...ldses.org,
xfs-masters@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: RFC: Fix f_flags races without the BKL
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 01:41:51PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/29, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> >
> > After pondering for a while, I couldn't come up with anything better than a
> > global file->f_flags mutex. There's no point in bloating struct file with
> > a mutex just for this purpose; it's hard to imagine that there will be any
> > real contention for this lock.
>
> Yes, this patch is simple and straightforward, but now we can't change
> ->f_flags in non-preempible context. And the global lock is not very
> nice anyway.
>
> Once again, can't we use O_LOCK_FLAGS bit? I agree, it is a bit ugly,
> and I won't insist if you don't like is.
I would prefer O_LOCK_FLAGS bit too. The global lock is not very nice
and I don't doubt someone will come up with a workload which
pounds on it.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com
--
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