[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgGN-9dmso4L+6RWdouEg4zQfd74m23K6c9E_=Qua+H1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:18:30 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: io-uring <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] io_uring fixes for 5.6-rc
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 10:50 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@...com> wrote:
>
> Just a single fix here, improving the RCU callback ordering from last
> week. After a bit more perusing by Paul, he poked a hole in the
> original.
Ouch.
If I read this patch correctly, you're now adding a rcu_barrier() onto
the system workqueue for each io_uring context freeing op.
This makes me worry:
- I think system_wq is unordered, so does it even guarantee that the
rcu_barrier happens after whatever work you're expecting it to be
after?
Or is it using a workqueue not because it wants to serialize with any
other work, but because it needs to use rcu_barrier in a context where
it can't sleep?
But the commit message does seem to imply that ordering is important..
- doesn't this have the potential to flood the system_wq be full of
flushing things that all could take a while..
I've pulled it, and it may all be correct, just chalk this message up
to "Linus got nervous looking at it".
Added Paul and Tejun to the participants explicitly.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists