On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 02:32:28PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote: > 10.10.2012 05:23, J. Bruce Fields пишет: > >On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 03:47:42PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >>"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >>>On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 01:20:48PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >>>>"Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>>> > >>>>>On Tue, 2012-10-09 at 15:35 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > >>>>>>Cc'ing Eric since I seem to recall he suggested doing it this way? > >>>> > >>>>Yes. On second look setting fs->root won't work. We need to change fs. > >>>>The problem is that by default all kernel threads share fs so changing > >>>>fs->root will have non-local consequences. > >>> > >>>Oh, huh. And we can't "unshare" it somehow? > >> > >>I don't fully understand how nfs uses kernel threads and work queues. > >>My general understanding is work queues reuse their kernel threads > >>between different users. So it is mostly a don't pollute your > >>environment thing. If there was a dedicated kernel thread for each > >>environment this would be trivial. > >> > >>What I was suggesting here is changing task->fs instead of > >>task->fs.root. That should just require task_lock(). > > > >Oh, OK, got it--if that works, great. > > > > The main problem with swapping fs struct is actually the same as in > root swapping. I.e. routines for copy fs_struct are not exported. > It could be done on place, but I don't think, that Al Viro would > support such implementation. > Trond? It seems like we got stalled here.... Could you go ahead and try a patch, and see what people think? --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
