[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YqykOzBJtNbTB9I6@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 17:56:43 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Roman Penyaev <rpenyaev@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/rwlocks: do not starve writers
On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 05:24:58PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> If only tasklist_lock is problematic and needs the unfair variant,
> then changing a few read_lock() for tasklist_lock will be less
> invasive than ~1000 read_lock() elsewhere....
This is unknown. tasklist_lock was the obvious one, there might be more.
Lockdep should be able to tell you.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists