From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"Eric Dumazet" <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
"Al Viro" <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Maciej Żenczykowski" <maze@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 14:54:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150829125421.GB14973@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150829092219.GA8916@gmail.com>
On 08/29, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> So I'm wondering, is there any strong reason why we couldn't use a double linked
> list and still do FIFO and remove that silly linear list walking hack?
This will obviously enlarge callback_head, and it is often embedded.
But this is minor.
If we use a double linked list we can't do task_work_add() lockless.
So we will need another spinlock_t in task_struct. We can't use pi_lock.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-29 12:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ 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 [this message]
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 ` [PATCH? v2] " Oleg Nesterov
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-08-29 21:08 [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee George Spelvin
2015-08-31 13:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-08-31 15:21 ` George Spelvin
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=20150829125421.GB14973@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox