[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121017165902.GB9872@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 18:59:02 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] brw_mutex: big read-write mutex
On 10/16, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> > This patch adds the new sleeping lock, brw_mutex. Unlike rw_semaphore
> > it allows multiple writers too, just "read" and "write" are mutually
> > exclusive.
>
> So those semantics just don't sound sane. It's also not what any kind
> of normal "rw" lock ever does.
Yes, this is not usual.
And initially I made brw_sem which allows only 1 writer, but then
I changed this patch.
> So can you explain why these particular insane semantics are useful,
> and what for?
To allow multiple uprobe_register/unregister at the same time. Mostly
to not add the "regression", currently this is possible.
It is not that I think this is terribly important, but still. And
personally I think that "multiple writers" is not necessarily insane
in general. Suppose you have the complex object/subsystem, the readers
can use a single brw_mutex to access it "lockless", start_read() is
very cheap.
But start_write() is slow. Multiple writes can use the fine-grained
inside the start_write/end_write section and do not block each other.
Oleg.
--
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