[lkml]   [2003]   [May]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 2.5.69-mm1
    On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 05:02:22AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
    > On Tue, 2003-05-06 at 04:09, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
    > > That brings me to the point - with the fget-speedup patch, we should
    > > probably change ->file_lock back to an rwlock again. We now take this
    > > lock only when fd table is shared and under such situation the rwlock
    > > should help. Andrew, it that ok ?
    > rwlocks believe it or not tend not to be superior over spinlocks,
    > they actually promote cache line thrashing in the case they
    > are actually being effective (>1 parallel reader)

    Provided there isn't a very heavy contention among readers for the spin_lock.
    There is no evidence that this happens with ->file_lock as
    spin_lock, so I guess we are ok for now. We should probably watch out
    for some multi-threaded programs (Java->posix-threads ?) on
    large smp boxes though.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:35    [W:0.018 / U:162.512 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site