On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 03:12:23PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> It's not a terribly bad hack - it's just poor-man's hashing, and it's
> reasonably well-suited to the sorts of machines and workloads which we
> expect will hit this problem.
The dnotify/inotify wakeups are a problem, namely because the implementation
is braindead: it makes the wrong part of the interface fast (setting up
notify entries) at the expense of making the rest of the kernel slow (adding
locks to read()/write()). read() and write() are incredibly hot paths in
the kernel and should be optimized at the expense of dnotify and inotify,
which are uncommon operations.
-ben
--
"Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry to interrupt, but the police are here
and they've asked us to stop the party." Don't Email: <[email protected]>.
-
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]
