[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1282314765.2484.104.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:32:45 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: yao zhao <dragonlinux@...il.com>
Cc: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
Wensong Zhang <wensong@...ux-vs.org>,
Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>,
Paul E McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc] IPVS: convert scheduler management to RCU
Le vendredi 20 août 2010 à 10:16 -0400, yao zhao a écrit :
> if it is not performance critical, you should use the
> read_lock/write_lock, it should make the readers happier than
> spinlock. the name "mutex" is a little bit confuse.
Yes, I mentioned the 'mutex' name oddity.
Point is :
We want to remove read_write locks. They dont fit the bill.
If performance critical, lot of readers -> RCU (a lot faster)
If not, or too much writers versus readers -> spinlock (a bit faster)
> synchronize_rcu() is not necessary when you only need to delete from a
> list as it is atomic.
>
Thats a rather strange and completely wrong claim. A big part of RCU job
is to have appropriate work done on deletes. Inserts are more easy (only
needs a smp_wmb())
Take a look at Documentation/RCU/* before saying such things ;)
Not only synchronize_rcu() is not enough to protect this kind of code,
but you need something stronger.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists