[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwf5DAx=t38N=L-5_HZu=2b3PEBPtumDPoovYDPNzMQOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 13:46:00 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
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, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> OK, having found the beginning of the thread, I understand what is being
> attempted, but... why the hell bother with FIFO in the first place? AFAICS,
> task_work_add() uses in VFS (final fput() and final mntput() alike)
> do not care about the FIFO at all.
>
> Sure, some out-of-tree mer^H^Hodule might rely on that. So what?
>
> IMO, unless we have a good in-tree reason for insisting on FIFO, dropping it
> is the most obvious solution...
I agree. We should just try that.
I'll apply Eric's patch from the beginning of this tree, and let's
just see if anybody ever notices.
Removing code and possibly fixing a latency issue sounds like a win-win.
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