Re: deferring __fput()

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 13:14 +0100, Al Viro wrote:

> You mean, doing that from RCU callbacks?

Indirectly, yeah, but the RCU callback would schedule it or whatever.

>   Still a bad idea, IMO; you will end up with a context
> switch and unpleasantness with delayed user-visible effects of syscalls.  With aio we did have
> a delayed execution of fput() anyway; all that has changed there is that we use generic
> mechanism instead of home-grown analog thereof.

Right, the delayed effect is the main concern. The example in the
referred thread was unmount() returning -EBUSY after the last
close()/munmap().

> I'll need to reread that thread to comment on the specifics (had been too long ago; I don't
> remember the details), but...  See Linus' objections to full-async fput() circa this April
> or March.  There's a reason why this patchset uses task_work_add() whenever possible.

Ok, I'll try and find that thread, so the advantage of task_work_add()
is that you'll keep the work in the task that caused it wherever
possible, right -- provided its actually sitll around.

If we make fput() deferable in general we'll be sure to grow some 'fun'
cases. So are we going to add a sync against unmount someplace to avoid
these un-expected -EBUSY things?

--
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/