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/
