[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55BADA98.3000304@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:16:56 -0400
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
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 07/29/2015 06:21 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Two quick questions.
>
> - What motivates this work? Are you seeing lots of
> parallel reads on proc?
The micro-benchmark that I used was artificial, but it was used to
reproduce an exit hanging problem that I saw in real application. In
fact, only allow one task to do a lookup seems too limiting 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.
RCU is harder to verify its correctness, whereas rwlock is easier to use
and understand. If it is really a performance critical path where every
extra bit of performance counts, I will certainly think RCU may be the
right choice. However, in this particular case, I don't think using RCU
will give any noticeable performance gain compared with a rwlock.
Cheers,
Longman
--
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