Re: Containers: css_put() dilemma

[Paul (宝瑠) Menage]

On 7/17/07, Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> That sounds correct. I wonder now if the solution should be some form
> of delegation for deletion of unreferenced containers (HINT: work queue
> or kernel threads).

What a great idea. In fact, that's exactly what the release agent
patch already does.

> > Adding a synchronize_rcu in container_diput() guarantees that the
> > container structure won't be freed while someone may still be
> > accessing it.
> >
>
> Do we take rcu_read_lock() in css_put() path or use call_rcu() to
> free the container?

Good point, we ought to add rcu_read_lock() (even though it doesn't
actually do anything on architectures other than alpha, right?)

Using call_rcu to do the container kfree rather than synchronize_rcu()
would be a possible future optimization, yes.

Paul
-
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/