[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 03:02:06 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...marydata.com>,
Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/16] nfsd/sunrpc: add support for a workqueue-based
nfsd
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 06:29:37PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Linus, do you see any problems with the following patch (against the mainline)?
>
> Not concpetually, but create_kthread() uses CLONE_FS, and I don't
> think it's just umask that things like nfsd want to avoid sharing.
> What about all the *other* fields?
>
> Just as an example: even if all the threads actually end up all having
> the same global root, what about contention on 'fs->lock'?
>
> I have *not* looked at the details, and maybe there's some reason I'm
> completely off, but it worries me.
Umm... I would be very surprised if it turned out to be a problem.
nfsd really doesn't give a fuck about its cwd and root - not in the
thread side of things. And (un)exporting is (a) not on a hot path
and (b) not done from a kernel thread anyway. fh_to_dentry and friends
doesn't care about root/cwd, etc.
I don't see anything that could cause that kind of issues.
--
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