[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230911140439.b273bf9e120881f038da0de7@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 14:04:39 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
Cc: Chuck Lever <cel@...nel.org>,
Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@...cle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 11/17] lib: add light-weight queuing mechanism.
On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 20:30:40 +0000 Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@...cle.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Sep 11, 2023, at 2:13 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 10:39:43 -0400 Chuck Lever <cel@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> >> lwq is a FIFO single-linked queue that only requires a spinlock
> >> for dequeueing, which happens in process context. Enqueueing is atomic
> >> with no spinlock and can happen in any context.
> >
> > What is the advantage of this over using one of the library
> > facilities which we already have?
>
> I'll let the patch author respond to that question, but let me pose
> one of my own: What pre-existing facilities are you thinking of, so
> that I may have a look?
Well, I assume that plain old list_heads could be recruited for this
requirement. And I hope that a FIFO could be implemented using kfifo ;)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists