From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: "Eric Dumazet" <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"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: Re: [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 06:35:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150905053536.GD22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150829124921.GA14973@redhat.com>
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 02:49:21PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Let's look keyctl_session_to_parent(). It does task_work_cancel()
> but only because we can not trust user-space. Otherwise we could
> remove it and just do task_work_add(), but this needs fifo.
>
> Fifo just looks more sane to me.
Not if it costs us. As far as files closing is concerned, the order
really doesn't matter. Ditto for final mntput() uses of that stuff.
What *does* matter is task_work_add() issued by callback not getting lost.
IMO the obvious solution is to lose the reordering...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-05 5:36 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
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 ` Al Viro [this message]
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=20150905053536.GD22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--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=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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