[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120623213317.GM14083@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:33:17 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
". James Morris" <jmorris@...ei.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: deferring __fput()
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 09:57:55PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> 3) at that point task_work is equal in size (and layout, BTW) to rcu_head. So we can add it
> into the same union in struct file where we already have list_head and rcu_head. No space
> eaten up. fput() would, once the counter reaches 0, remove the file from list (the only
> place walking that list skips the ones with zero refcount anyway) and, if we are in a normal
> process, use task_work_add() to have __fput() done to it. If we are in kernel thread or
> atomic context, just move the sucker to global list and use schedule_work() to have said
Only that's probably s/atomic/interrupt/
> list emptied and everything in it fed to __fput().
--
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