On Mon, 20 Nov 2006, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > Must we introduce memory allocations in srcu_read_lock()? It makes it
> > > much harder and nastier for me to use. I'd much prefer a failing
> > > init_srcu(), seems like a much better API.
> >
> > Paul agrees with you that allocation failures in init_srcu() should be
> > passed back to the caller, and I certainly don't mind doing so.
> >
> > However we can't remove the memory allocation in srcu_read_lock(). That
> > was the point which started this whole thread: the per-cpu allocation
> > cannot be done statically, and some users of a static SRCU structure can't
> > easily call init_srcu() early enough.
> >
> > Once the allocation succeeds, the overhead in srcu_read_lock() is minimal.
>
> It's not about the overhead, it's about a potentially problematic
> allocation.
I'm not sure what you mean by "problematic allocation". If you
successfully call init_srcu_struct then the allocation will be taken care
of. Later calls to srcu_read_lock won't experience any slowdowns or
problems.
If your call to init_srcu_struct isn't successful then you have to decide
how to handle it. You can ignore the failure and live with degraded
performance (caused by cache-line contention and repeated attempts to do
the per-cpu allocation), or you can give up entirely.
Does this answer your objection? If not, can you explain in more detail
what other features you would like?
Alan Stern
-
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]
