[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFz3gJE_DpZufTDNoRZ=vgJS3OwMspR7ZSqzGY_rWMq4gQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:02:23 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: spinlock contention of files->file_lock
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> The problem is dup2()
Shouldn't a cmpxchg() in just the dup2 code solve that?
If the old value was NULL, you'd have to repeat and go back and see if
the open_fds[] bit had been cleared in the meantime (ie it's NULL not
because somebody else is busy installing it, but because somebody just
uninstalled it).
But yeah, I do agree that that sounds nasty and a complication I
hadn't even thought about. dup2() does violate our normal "let's
pre-allocate the fd slot" rule. Ugh.
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