[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070128172027.GA4913@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:20:27 +0000
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [PATCH 2/7] lock_list: a fine grain locked double linked list]
> Provide a simple fine grain locked double link list.
>
> It is build upon the regular double linked list primitives, spinlocks and RCU.
>
> Locking is peculiar in that edges are locked, this avoid the circular lock
> dependancy created by the fact that the regular linked lists are circular.
>
> Item deletion requires that both surrounding elements are locked, however since
> the locking rules dictate that we lock elements in a single direction we have
> to lock the previous element while it might be deleted under us. Hence the
> requirement that all elements are RCU freed.
I think implicitly locked data structures are very bad for code readability
and debugability. What's even worse here is that we have a requirement that
all members are RCU freed.
Note that we also have another implicitly locked (and refcounted) list
implementation in klist.[ch] - if we find consensus that we want implicitly
locked list we should figure out whether we want lock_list or klist semantics
and stick to one of them.
What uses do you have planned for this data structure? In general I think
we'd be better off to simplify the data structures as in my files_list_lock
proposal instead of complicating the locking.
-
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