[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231129-fundort-kalligrafie-d4777374ad7a@brauner>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 12:38:30 +0100
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] core/nfsd: allow kernel threads to use task_work.
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 06:29:59PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Forgot to menstion,
>
> On 11/28, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > but please
> > note irq_thread()->task_work_add(on_exit_work).
>
> and this means that Neil's and your more patch were wrong ;)
Hm, that's all the more reason to not hang this off of PF_KTHREAD then.
I mean, it's functional but we likely wouldn't have run into this
confusion if this would be PF_FPUT_DELAYED, for example.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists