[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090203153740.363d0a04@bike.lwn.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 15:37:40 -0700
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
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,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Convert epoll to a bitlock
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:22:02 -0600
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com> wrote:
> But that re-opens the question of what to do about poor Jon's quest.
>
> I got confused halfway through as he went from using a global fasync
> spinlock to a non-locked but atomic flag bit. Not sure why using a
> per-file or per-inode lock doesn't work for the fasync code.
No per-file lock because (1) there is resistance to growing struct
file, and (2) lockless algorithms are all the rage now. Additionally,
solving the fasync-atomicity problem with locks requires the use of a
mutex (or the BKL) rather than a spinlock. I suppose we could combine
a global f_flags lock with the set-FASYNC-in-fasync_helper() bits.
At this point Poor Jon sees a fork in the road as he contemplates the
future of his quest:
- Go with this patch set, perhaps with a bit of cleanup as suggested by
Andrew.
- Go back to the global lock.
- Go away, leave the BKL in place, and wait for somebody smarter to
attack the problem.
Any wise guidance would be most welcome...
jon
--
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