On 7/17/07, Balbir Singh <[email protected]> wrote:
That sounds correct. I wonder now if the solution should be some form
of delegation for deletion of unreferenced containers (HINT: work queue
or kernel threads).
What a great idea. In fact, that's exactly what the release agent
patch already does.
> Adding a synchronize_rcu in container_diput() guarantees that the
> container structure won't be freed while someone may still be
> accessing it.
>
Do we take rcu_read_lock() in css_put() path or use call_rcu() to
free the container?
Good point, we ought to add rcu_read_lock() (even though it doesn't
actually do anything on architectures other than alpha, right?)
Using call_rcu to do the container kfree rather than synchronize_rcu()
would be a possible future optimization, yes.
Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
