On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> IIUC, moving rcu_barrier() up should help, but I can't say that I fully
> understand SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU semantics.
.. hmm. I think you may be right. Even if we do move it up, we
probably shouldn't use it.
We don't even want SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU, since we do the delayed RCU
free for other reasons anyway, so it would duplicate the RCU delaying
and cause problems. I forgot about that little complication.
We could have a separate "RCU_BARRIER_ON_DESTROY" thing, but that's
just silly too.
Maybe your patch is the right thing.
Linus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Jfs-discussion mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jfs-discussion
