[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFw83WOc03Q_HgK1w1BiAqZbGUXw0JwsC+1OMeS-VEJBrg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 20:19:42 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: 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>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee
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?
Linus
--
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