Re: deferring __fput()

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

On 06/25, Al Viro wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 05:33:10PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > No, we can't do this?
> >
> > OK, perhaps we can check something else instead of PF_EXITING.
> > But somehow we should ensuree that if task_work_add(twork) succeeds,
> > then twork->func() will be called. IOW, if task_work_add() races with
> > the exiting task, it should not succeed after exit_task_work().
>
> Hrm...  I still think that callers can bloody well check it themselves,

Why? I don't think this would be very convenient, and it is not easy
to avoid the races. Unless task == current.

OK, if task == current it can do the necessary checks, so we could add
"force" argument for fput(). But I agree, it would be better to avoid
this.

And since we want to move exit_task_work() after exit_fs() we can't
rely on PF_EXITING (unless we add "force").

> but anyway - we can add a new PF_... bit and have it set on kernel threads
> (all along)

Why? irq_thread() already uses task_work_add()...

> the real question is in locking
> and barriers needed there.  Suggestions?

Yes, we need more barries. Or, perhaps exit_task_work() should simply
take ->pi_lock unconditionally? I don't think additional STORE + mb()
is better.

And if it always takes ->pi_lock we do not need the new PF_ or something
else, exit_task_work() can set task->task_works = NO_MORE under ->pi_lock
(task_work_run() can check PF_EXITING), and task_work_add() ensures that
task_works != NO_MORE.

What do you think?

Oleg.