[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231101221502.GE32034@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2023 23:15:02 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@...istor.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rxrpc_find_service_conn_rcu: use read_seqbegin() rather
than read_seqbegin_or_lock()
On 11/01, David Howells wrote:
>
> However, I think just changing all of these to always-lockless isn't
> necessarily the most optimal way.
Yes, but so far I am trying to change the users which never take the
lock for writing, so this patch doesn't change the current behaviour.
> I wonder if struct seqlock would make more sense with an rwlock rather than a
> spinlock. As it is, it does an exclusive spinlock for the readpath which is
> kind of overkill.
Heh. Please see
[PATCH 4/5] seqlock: introduce read_seqcount_begin_or_lock() and friends
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230913155005.GA26252@redhat.com/
I am going to return to this later.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists