[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120608154037.e3069eab.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 15:40:37 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH, RESEND] fs: push rcu_barrier() from
deactivate_locked_super() to filesystems
On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 23:36:24 +0100
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:31:20PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 23:27:34 +0100
> > Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:25:50PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >
> > > > A neater implementation might be to add a kmem_cache* argument to
> > > > unregister_filesystem(). If that is non-NULL, unregister_filesystem()
> > > > does the rcu_barrier() and destroys the cache. That way we get to
> > > > delete (rather than add) a bunch of code from all filesystems and new
> > > > and out-of-tree filesystems cannot forget to perform the rcu_barrier().
> > >
> > > There's often enough more than one cache, so that one is no-go.
> >
> > kmem_cache** ;)
> >
> > Which filesystems have multiple inode caches?
>
> inodes are not the only things that get caches of their own...
Yes, but other random non-inode caches do not get rcu requirements
secretly forced upon them by the vfs so don't need rcu_barrier() prior
to their destruction?
> BTW, Kirill, would you mind not cross-posting to that many lists ever again?
I dunno, I like all those little messages - it makes me feel important.
--
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