Messages in this thread | | | From | Ryan Cumming <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Change locking in block_dev.c:do_open() | Date | Wed, 12 Dec 2001 18:49:20 -0800 |
| |
On December 12, 2001 18:40, Torrey Hoffman wrote: > Ryan Cumming wrote: > > Why not use a read-write semaphore? The sections that require > > the module to > > stay resident use a read lock, and module unloading aquires a > > write lock. In > > addition to containing the evil, evil BKL, you might actually > > get a tangiable > > scalability gain out of it.
<random sassing snipped>
> With some improvements in this area, massively parallel SMP systems > could parallelize module loading, and achieve thousands of module > load/unload operations per second (MLUOPS).
Ha, yes, I can imagine how what I said seemed rather amusing. In case it wasn't clear, I mean we should use a read write semaphore to prevent things that require the module to be loaded from being -serialized against each other-. So, think being able to parellelize the actual -usage- of the module's functions. Module unloads would still be serialized, unfortunately ;)
-Ryan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |