[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x49aaiwd6cs.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 14:46:27 -0500
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] fs: aio fix rcu lookup
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> writes:
> Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> writes:
>
>> But there's the second race I describe making it possible
>> for new IO to be created after io_destroy() has waited for all IO to
>> finish...
>
> Can't that be solved by introducing memory barriers around the accesses
> to ->dead?
Upon further consideration, I don't think so.
Given the options, I think adding the synchronize rcu to the io_destroy
path is the best way forward. You're already waiting for a bunch of
queued I/O to finish, so there is no guarantee that you're going to
finish that call quickly.
Cheers,
Jeff
--
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