[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060824150026.GA14853@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:00:26 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, ego@...ibm.com,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, torvalds@...l.org, akpm@...l.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arjan@...el.linux.com,
davej@...hat.com, dipankar@...ibm.com, vatsa@...ibm.com,
ashok.raj@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] Rename lock_cpu_hotplug/unlock_cpu_hotplug
* Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> wrote:
> It really is just like a reentrant rw semaphore... I don't see the
> point of the name change, but I guess we don't like reentrant locks so
> calling it something else might go down better with Linus ;)
what would fit best is a per-cpu scalable (on the read-side)
self-reentrant rw mutex. We are doing cpu hotplug locking in things like
fork or the slab code, while most boxes will do a CPU hotplug event only
once in the kernel's lifetime (during bootup), so a classic global
read-write lock is unjustified.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists