Re: deferring __fput()

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 21:57 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> 3) at that point task_work is equal in size (and layout, BTW) to rcu_head.  So we can add it
> into the same union in struct file where we already have list_head and rcu_head.  No space
> eaten up.  fput() would, once the counter reaches 0, remove the file from list (the only
> place walking that list skips the ones with zero refcount anyway) and, if we are in a normal
> process, use task_work_add() to have __fput() done to it.  If we are in kernel thread or
> atomic context, just move the sucker to global list and use schedule_work() to have said
> list emptied and everything in it fed to __fput(). 

So we're now Ok with doing fput() async?

Last time I remember this coming up people thought this wasn't such a
hot idea.

  https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/1/5/208



--
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/