[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44EDCB83.3010500@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 01:53:39 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
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
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * 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.
I agree with you completely.
--
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 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