Tejun Heo wrote:
Nick Piggin wrote:
The upshot of that would be that you could build the whole thing
from rwsem infrastructure and have basically zero other locking
mechanisms or complexity that you don't want in a synchronisation
primitive.
To certain extent, I do agree with you - it's safer/simpler..., but on
the other hand, new brsem isn't that more complex and would perform
almost identically without extra semantical baggage. So, I thought it
might be worth a bit more effort.
I would do it thisway if possible, yes.
Hmm... So, array of rwsem's, it should be.
First implementation would be per-cpu just rwsems. A second patch
to make it just an array rwsem->count's plus a shared queue may
be in order - OTOH everyone does their own rwsems, so this will be
a bit of a headache.
I forget - are you just planning to use one global brsem? In this
case the size issue wouldn't be a pressing one.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
