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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox