[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201112131049.53008.oneukum@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:49:52 +0100
From: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
gregkh@...e.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ostrikov@...dia.com,
adobriyan@...il.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] kref: Remove the memory barriers
Am Dienstag, 13. Dezember 2011, 10:12:20 schrieb Peter Zijlstra:
> On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 23:56 +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > I guess I worried not about the increment, but the decrement.
> > Which makes me wonder what happens if you don't intend
> > to get the kref again, but need to make sure it is usually freed,
> > like:
> >
> > CPU A CPU B
> >
> > kref_get(p)
> > start_io(p)
> > [interrupt from IO]
> > kref_put(p)
>
> I would expect that if something was needed here, the io stack would
> provide the barriers since the io completion will probably want to
> change state set by the start_io thing.
> Anyway, I would put this squarely outside the responsibility of kref.
I agree, so let's remove it.
Regards
--
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