[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACVxJT8PRamwFeND2WpERW1K6fWv1RLvYBpjYooOVuWjqunT=g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:04:58 +0300
From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: change proc_subdir_lock to a rwlock
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 1:21 AM, Eric W. Biederman
<ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
> Two quick questions.
>
> - What motivates this work? Are you seeing lots of
> parallel reads on proc?
Well, yes, benchmark looks like very synthetic.
But even gcc opens /proc/meminfo, so might as well
apply the change.
Patch looks like obviously correct to me.
> - Why not rcu? Additions and removal of proc generic
> files is very rare. Conversion to rcu for reads should
> perform better and not take much more work.
If you want proc locking to be understood by ~10 people
on the planet then yes, there is RCU. :-)
--
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