From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Eric Dumazet" <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Maciej Żenczykowski" <maze@google.com>
Subject: [PATCH? v2] fput: don't abuse task_work_add() too much
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 15:49:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150907134924.GA24254@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150907122709.GA31811@redhat.com>
On 09/07, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> Oh, I disagree. But I guess I can't convince you/Eric/Linus, so I have
> to shut up.
>
>
> Damn. But I can't relax ;) Al, Linus, could you comment the patch below?
>
> Not for inclusion, lacks the changelog/testing, fput() can be simplified.
> But as you can see it is simple. With this patch task_work_add(____fput)
> will be called only once by (say) do_exit() path. ->fput_list does not
> need any serialization / atomic ops / etc. Probably we also need to move
> cond_resched() from task_work_run() to ____fput() after this patch.
>
> Again, it is not that I think this actually makes sense, but since you
> dislike these 275ms...
>
> What do you think?
Yes, task_struct->fput_list is ugly. We can avoid it, but then we need
another ->next pointer in struct file. Perhaps we can reuse ->f_version?
This way the change looks really simple and not too bad to me. Although
I am not sure you will agree.
Oleg.
---
diff --git a/fs/file_table.c b/fs/file_table.c
index 294174d..c34b666 100644
--- a/fs/file_table.c
+++ b/fs/file_table.c
@@ -241,7 +241,15 @@ static void delayed_fput(struct work_struct *unused)
static void ____fput(struct callback_head *work)
{
- __fput(container_of(work, struct file, f_u.fu_rcuhead));
+ struct file *file = container_of(work, struct file, f_u.fu_rcuhead);
+ struct file *next;
+
+ do {
+ next = file->f_next_put;
+ __fput(file);
+ file = next;
+
+ } while (file);
}
/*
@@ -267,9 +275,21 @@ void fput(struct file *file)
struct task_struct *task = current;
if (likely(!in_interrupt() && !(task->flags & PF_KTHREAD))) {
+ struct callback_head *work = READ_ONCE(task->task_works);
+ struct file *prev;
+
+ if (work && work->func == ____fput) {
+ prev = container_of(work, struct file, f_u.fu_rcuhead);
+ file->f_next_put = prev->f_next_put;
+ prev->f_next_put = file;
+ return;
+ }
+
init_task_work(&file->f_u.fu_rcuhead, ____fput);
- if (!task_work_add(task, &file->f_u.fu_rcuhead, true))
+ if (!task_work_add(task, &file->f_u.fu_rcuhead, true)) {
+ file->f_next_put = NULL;
return;
+ }
/*
* After this task has run exit_task_work(),
* task_work_add() will fail. Fall through to delayed
diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
index 0774487..9381527 100644
--- a/include/linux/fs.h
+++ b/include/linux/fs.h
@@ -849,7 +849,10 @@ struct file {
const struct cred *f_cred;
struct file_ra_state f_ra;
- u64 f_version;
+ union {
+ u64 f_version;
+ struct file *f_next_put;
+ };
#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY
void *f_security;
#endif
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-07 13:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-29 2:42 [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee Eric Dumazet
2015-08-29 3:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-08-29 9:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-08-29 12:54 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-08-31 6:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-08-31 12:51 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-08-29 12:49 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-08-29 13:57 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-08-29 14:11 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-08-29 17:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-08-31 5:22 ` yalin wang
2015-09-05 5:19 ` Al Viro
2015-08-31 12:44 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-05 5:12 ` Al Viro
2015-09-05 5:42 ` Al Viro
2015-09-05 20:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-08-31 12:05 ` change filp_close() to use __fput_sync() ? (Was: [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee) Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-05 5:35 ` [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee Al Viro
2015-09-07 12:27 ` [PATCH?] fput: don't abuse task_work_add() too much Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-07 13:49 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150907134924.GA24254@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maze@google.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.