I wonder if it may not be better to use a seqlock for the tree_lock? A
seqlock requires no writes at all if the tree has not been changed. RCU
still requires the incrementing of a (local) counter.
Using seqlocks would require reworking the readers so that they can
retry. Seqlocks provide already a verification that no update took place
while the operation was in process. Thus we would be using an established
framework that insures that the speculation was successful.
The problem is then though to guarantee that the radix trees are always
traversable since the seqlock's retry rather than block. This would
require sequencing of inserts and pose a big problem for deletes and
updates.
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |