[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090203140543.6e915f97.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 14:05:43 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc: corbet@....net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, andi@...stfloor.org,
oleg@...hat.com, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, davidel@...ilserver.org,
davem@...emloft.net, hch@....de, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
mpm@...enic.com, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Convert epoll to a bitlock
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:55:26 +0100
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> wrote:
> Andrew Morton a __crit :
> > On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 11:20:09 -0700
> > Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> wrote:
> >
> >> Matt Mackall suggested converting epoll's ep_lock to a bitlock as a way of
> >> saving space in struct file. This patch makes that change.
> >
> > hrm. bit_spin_lock() makes people upset (large penguiny people). iirc
> > it doesn't have all the correct/well-understood memory/compiler
> > ordering semantics which spinlocks have. And lockdep doesn't know about
> > it.
> >
>
> In a previous attempt (2005), I suggested using a single global lock.
>
> http://search.luky.org/linux-kernel.2005/msg50862.html
ok..
> Probably an array of hashed spinlocks would be more than enough.
>
yes, f_ep_lock is a teeny innermost lock. Perhaps using
f->f_dentry->d_inode->i_lock would be a decent speed/space compromise.
--
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