On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 03:35:48PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > On Friday, August 20, 2010 3:19:53 pm Kostik Belousov wrote: > > It seems nobody replied to the mdf@ objection against wait of the > > new proc startup being equivalent to the LOR. I think that the wait > > is safe, because the task is executed in the context of > > the different process then the enqueue request. > > This might be worth noting in the comment or commit message. > > I do wonder if we could get away with not waiting at all and always return -1? > You could have the task handler actually finish the toggle of the tristate in > the array. Potentially you could even dispense with the linked list of > malloc'd structures and just walk the array creating processes for any entries > in the "in-progress" state in the task handler. You might also want to avoid > submitting entries for new threads if there is already a pending one? If that > is the case it could be further simplified by having the task always create a > single kthread when scheduled and just scheduling the task anytime a request > needs one. I think this is not that easy. Please take a look at nfs_asyncio(). There is a lot of logic what to do in case an nfsiod thread was found or not etc.
pgpoeoqZ8MHhL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
