From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Al Viro" <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
"Eric Dumazet" <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Maciej Żenczykowski" <maze@google.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Revert "task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee"
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 18:43:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150909164324.GA5824@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFxWoAPot0vLYaXPazgyiYA9pJgCThnb9MX3P87U+J7pbQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 09/09, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:16 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Again, rightly or not I believe that FIFO makes task_work_add() more useful.
> > Perhaps I am wrong, so far I can only provide the artificial examples...
>
> I'd rather wait until somebody has a real use case. I hate adding
> infrastructure for "what if.." scenarios. We're better off if we can
> make do with minimal semantics (ie "there are no guarantees except
> that the work will be done before returning to user space") than with
> stronger semantics that people then perhaps start depending on even if
> they didn't really need them.
OK, I see. Thanks.
At least you seem to agree with 1-2, so if Al takes these changes we
can easily reconsider 3/3 later, if/when we have the new user which
needs FIFO.
Oleg.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-09 16:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-08 17:14 [PATCH 0/3] task_work: restore fifo ordering guarantee Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-08 17:14 ` [PATCH 1/3] fput: don't abuse task_work_add() when possible Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-08 17:14 ` [PATCH 2/3] fput: move ->f_next_put into a union with ->f_version Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-08 17:14 ` [PATCH 3/3] Revert "task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee" Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-08 17:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-08 17:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-09 13:16 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-09-09 16:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-09 16:43 ` 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=20150909164324.GA5824@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=peterz@infradead.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.