On Thu, 2018-04-19 at 12:30 -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 07:43:56AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:38:25AM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > > Oh can i get one more small slot for fs ? I want to ask if they are > > > any people against having a callback everytime a struct file is added > > > to a task_struct and also having a secondary array so that special > > > file like device file can store something opaque per task_struct per > > > struct file. > > > > Do you really want something per _thread_, and not per _mm_? > > Well per mm would be fine but i do not see how to make that happen with > reasonable structure. So issue is that you can have multiple task with > same mm but different file descriptors (or am i wrong here ?) thus there > would be no easy way given a struct file to lookup the per mm struct. > > So as a not perfect solution i see a new array in filedes which would > allow device driver to store a pointer to their per mm data structure. > To be fair usualy you will only have a single fd in a single task for > a given device. > > If you see an easy way to get a per mm per inode pointer store somewhere > with easy lookup i am all ears :) > I may be misunderstanding, but to be clear: struct files don't get added to a thread, per-se. When userland calls open() or similar, the struct file gets added to the files_struct. Those are generally shared with other threads within the same process. The files_struct can also be shared with other processes if you clone() with the right flags. Doing something per-thread on every open may be rather difficult to do. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
