[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120820154154.GB20258@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:41:54 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, dhowells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: lockdep trace from posix timers
On 08/20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 17:05 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Yes, we can add the explicit argument to __task_work_run(), but it can
> > check PF_EXITING instead, this looks simpler to me.
>
> I guess we could.. but I thought the explicit callback was simpler ;-)
I won't insist. The patch I sent uses PF_EXITING and the fake
"struct callback_head* TWORK_EXITED", but this looks almost the same.
> > Note also your patch breaks fifo, but this is fixable.
>
> Why do you care about the order?
IMHO, this is just more natural.
For example. keyctl_session_to_parent() does _cancel only to protect
from exploits doing keyctl(KEYCTL_SESSION_TO_PARENT) in an endless
loop. It could simply do task_work_add(), but in this case we need
fifo for correctness.
> Iterating a single linked queue in fifo
> seems more expensive than useful.
Currently the list is fifo (we add to the last element), this is O(1).
But the list should be short, we can reverse it in _run() if we change
task_work_add() to add to the head.
Oleg.
--
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