[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:0.076 / U:3.292 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site