Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/8] mm: handle_speculative_fault()

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> If it were only unmount it would be rather easy to fix by putting that
> RCU synchronization in unmount, unmount does a lot of sync things
> anyway. But I suspect there's more cases where that non-busy matters
> (but I'd need to educate myself on filesystems/vfs to come up with any).

unmount may well be the only really huge piece.

The only other effects of delaying closing a file I can see are

 - the ETXTBUSY thing, but we don't need to delay _that_ part, so this may 
   be a non-issue.

 - the actual freeing of the data on disk (ie people may expect that the 
   last close really frees up the space on the filesystem). However, this 
   is _such_ a subtle semantic thing that maybe nobody cares.

It's perhaps worth noting that I think Nick's VFS scalability patches did 
at least _some_ of the "struct filp" freeing in RCU context too, so this 
whole "vfs delays things in RCU" is not a new thing.

But I think that in Nick's case it was stricly just the freeing of the 
inode/dentry data structure (because he needed to traverse the dentry list 
locklessly - he didn't then _use_ the results locklessly). So the actual 
filesystem operations didn't get deferred, and as a result it didn't have 
this particular semantic nightmare.

			Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/