[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0903120625340.6040@makko.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 06:39:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, linux-aio <linux-aio@...ck.org>,
zach.brown@...cle.com, Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: fput() can be called from interrupt context
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Take the time to check how fs/aio.c handle the fput(req->ki_filp) case
> > (or read my 2nd patch, it should spot the thing)
>
> Well yes, a kludge like that seems a bit safer.
>
> It's somewhat encouraging that we're apparently already doing fput()
> from within keventd (although how frequently?). There might be
> problems with file locking, security code, etc from doing fput() from
> an unexpected thread. And then there are all the usual weird problem
> with using the keventd queues which take a long time to get discovered.
Would it be a huge problem, performance-wise, to stop making ->f_count
tricks in __aio_put_req, and always offload to fput_work the task of
releasing the requests?
If that's a huge problem, IMO the lower impact fix would be to use
aio_fput_routine to loop into a second list, releasing the eventual
eventfd file*. There's no need, IMO, to turn the whole fput() into
IRQ-callable just for this case, when we can contain it into the
particular KAIO+eventfd usage.
- Davide
--
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