From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755109AbbIHRRZ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:17:25 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33348 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752071AbbIHRRT (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:17:19 -0400
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 19:14:33 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Maciej =?utf-8?Q?=C5=BBenczykowski?= <maze@google.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] task_work: restore fifo ordering guarantee
Message-ID: <20150908171433.GA14573@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

OK, nobody replied, I will spam you again. Modulo some cosmetic changes
this is the same patch, now with the changelog and I tried to test it.

Eric, Al, Linus, I will appreciate any comment. I still disagree with
the recent c82199061009 "task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee".

I am not very sure about 2/3, so it comes as a separate change.

I used this trivial test-case

	#include <stdio.h>
	#include <unistd.h>
	#include <sys/wait.h>
	#include <stdlib.h>
	#include <fcntl.h>
	#include <assert.h>

	int main(int argc, const char *argv[])
	{
		int nfork = atoi(argv[1]);
		int nopen = atoi(argv[2]);

		while (nfork--) {
			if (fork()) {
				wait(NULL);
				continue;
			}

			while (nopen--)
				assert(open("/dev/null", O_RDONLY) >= 0);
			break;
		}

		return 0;
	}

to test the performance, and I see the same numbers with or without this
series. Well, actually the numbers look a little bit better when I do
"time ./o 10 1000000", but most probably this is just a noise.

Please review.

Oleg.

 fs/file_table.c    |   46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
 include/linux/fs.h |    5 ++++-
 kernel/task_work.c |   12 ++++++++++--
 3 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)