From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754401Ab3FORvM (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Jun 2013 13:51:12 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54716 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754234Ab3FORvL (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Jun 2013 13:51:11 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 19:46:57 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Andrew Morton Cc: Al Viro , Andrey Vagin , "Eric W. Biederman" , David Howells , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Huang Ying , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] (Was: fput: task_work_add() can fail if the caller has passed exit_task_work()) Message-ID: <20130615174657.GA15550@redhat.com> References: <20130614190915.GA8226@redhat.com> <20130614190947.GA8259@redhat.com> <20130614145831.c65ad42447637e3ad33eb79d@linux-foundation.org> <20130615172959.GA14656@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130615172959.GA14656@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org sorry, forgot to mention... On 06/15, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > OT: I don't think that schedule_work() needs to be inside the locked > > region. Scalability improvements beckon! > > Yeees, I thought about this too. > > Performance-wise this can't really help, this case is unlikely. But > I think this change makes this code a bit simpler, so please see 1/3. This is on top of fput-task_work_add-can-fail-if-the-caller-has-passed-exit_task_work-fix.patch it textually depends on the comment block in fput() added by that patch. Oleg.