[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150829092219.GA8916@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 11:22:19 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > We could add yet another cond_resched() in the reverse loop, or we can simply
> > remove the reversal, as I do not think anything would depend on order of
> > task_work_add() submitted works.
>
> So I think this should be ok, with things like file closing not really caring
> about ordering as far as I can tell.
>
> However, has anybody gone through all the task-work users? I looked quickly at
> the task_work_add() cases, and didn't see anything that looked like it would
> care, but others should look too. In the vfs, theres' the delayed fput and mnt
> freeing, and there's a keyring installation one.
>
> The threaded irq handlers use it as that exit-time hack, which certainly
> shouldn't care, and there's some uprobe thing.
>
> Can anybody see anything fishy?
So I'm wondering, is there any strong reason why we couldn't use a double linked
list and still do FIFO and remove that silly linear list walking hack?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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