[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1004010852170.3707@i5.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 08:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>
Subject: Re: Is module refcounting racy?
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> I think it can be done racelessly with my patch, which is not really too
> much overhead. I think if this is considered too much, then we should
> either fix code and preferably de-export and remove module_refcount from
> drivers, or remove module removal completely.
I doubt your patch matters too much, but I like it conceptually and it
seems to be a nice basis for perhaps doing something clever in the long
run.
[ ie avoiding the stop_machine and instead perhaps doing some optimistic
thing like "see if we seem to be unused right now, then unregister us,
and see - after unregistering - that the usage counts haven't increased,
and re-register if they have. ]
So I'd like to apply it as a "good improvement, even if module unloading
which is the only thing that _should_ care deeply should already be under
stop-machine".
But I'd like an ack or two first.
Linus
--
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