Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1215739
| From | Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee |
| Date | 2015-08-29 11:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q2KCv-65w-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <q2Enn-5vz-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <q2EQq-6ip-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > We could add yet another cond_resched() in the reverse loop, or we can simply > > remove the reversal, as I do not think anything would depend on order of > > task_work_add() submitted works. > > So I think this should be ok, with things like file closing not really caring > about ordering as far as I can tell. > > However, has anybody gone through all the task-work users? I looked quickly at > the task_work_add() cases, and didn't see anything that looked like it would > care, but others should look too. In the vfs, theres' the delayed fput and mnt > freeing, and there's a keyring installation one. > > The threaded irq handlers use it as that exit-time hack, which certainly > shouldn't care, and there's some uprobe thing. > > Can anybody see anything fishy? 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? Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 04:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-08-29 05:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2015-08-29 11:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-08-29 15:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2015-08-31 08:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-08-31 15:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-08-29 15:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 16:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 16:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-08-29 19:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee yalin wang <yalin.wang2010@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 07:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2015-09-05 07:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-08-31 14:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2015-09-05 07:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2015-09-05 07:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-09-05 22:50 +0200
change filp_close() to use __fput_sync() ? (Was: [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee) Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-08-31 14:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] task_work: remove fifo ordering guarantee Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2015-09-05 07:40 +0200
csiph-web