On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Thank you for your comment.
>
> James Morris wrote:
> > Why do you need to avoid spinlocks for these manipulations?
>
> I don't need to use spinlocks here.
> What I need to do here is avoid read/write reordering,
> so mb() will be appropriate here.
>
> struct something {
> struct something *next;
> void *data;
> };
>
> struct something *prev_ptr = ...;
> struct something *new_ptr = kmalloc(sizeof(*new_ptr), GFP_KERNEL);
> new_ptr->next = NULL;
> new_ptr->data = some_value;
> mb();
> prev_ptr->next = new_ptr;
You're introducing a custom API, which is open-coded repeatedly throughout
your module.
All linked lists (at least, new ones) must use the standard kernel list
API.
> Performance is not critical because this mb() is called
> only when appending new entry to the singly-linked list.
Most of these uses appear to be slow path or nested inside other locks,
while overall, performance is likely to be dominated by your string
matching and permission checking. Use of mb(), which is typically
considered less understandable, in this case does not appear to be
justified vs. normal locking, and you also need to use the standard list
API. If performance really is an issue, then consider RCU.
- James
--
James Morris
<[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]
