[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YsS8fin9DVKUGxzM@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2022 12:34:38 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Imran Khan <imran.f.khan@...cle.com>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
m.szyprowski@...sung.com, nathan@...nel.org, michael@...le.cc,
robh@...nel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, guillaume.tucker@...labora.com,
pmladek@...e.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] kernfs: Avoid re-adding kernfs_node into
kernfs_notify_list.
Hello,
On Wed, Jul 06, 2022 at 06:18:28AM +1000, Imran Khan wrote:
> In this case, the point of using llist would be to avoid taking the locks in
> consumer.
Given that the consumer can dispatch the whole list, I doubt that's worth
the complication.
> Hmm. My idea was that eventually we will never run into situation where multiple
> producers will end up adding the same node because as soon as first producer
> adds the node (the other potential adders are spinning on kernfs_notify_lock),
> kn->attr.notif_next.next will get a non-NULL value and checking
> (kn->attr.notify_next.next != NULL) will avoid the node getting re-added.
So, here, I don't see how llist can be used without a surrounding lock and I
don't see much point in using llist if we need to use a lock anyway. If this
needs to be made scalable, we need a different strategy (e.g. per-cpu lock /
pending list can be an option).
I'm a bit swamped with other stuff and will likely be less engaged from now
on. I'll try to review patches where possible.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists