[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyNmLt9GeR5XyxOs7aGLwH3EBCB+K9D6uGBef3FziP2-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 08:34:06 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] spinlock: A new lockref structure for lockless
update of refcount
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com> wrote:
>
> Other than the global tty_ldisc_lock, there is no other major
> bottleneck. I am not that worry about the tty_ldisc_lock bottleneck
> as real world applications probably won't have that many calls to
> set the tty driver.
I suspect the tty_ldisc_lock() could be made to go away if we care.
Making the ldisc be rcu-free'd, coupled with just optimistically
updating the count using "atomic_inc_not_zero()" and re-checking the
ldisc pointer afterwards should probably do it. But I agree that it
probably isn't worth it for any actual real load.
Linus
--
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