[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] inotify.
Robert Love wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 10:52 -0700, Zach Brown wrote:

>>>+ if (likely(!atomic_read(&inode->inotify_watch_count)))
>>>+ return;
>>Are there still platforms that implement atomic_read() with locks? I
>>wonder if there isn't a cheaper way for inodes to find out that they're
>>not involved in inotify.. maybe an inode function pointer that is only
>>set to queue_event when watchers are around?
> I don't know what esoteric architectures are doing, but the solution
> needs to be atomic (or we need to say "we don't care about races"--but
> its hard not to care about a pointer race). On x86, at least, an
> atomic_read() is trivial.
> I actually would not mind being racey (in a safe way) or finding a
> cheaper solution, especially if we could remove
> inode->inotify_watch_count altogether (and not replace it with
> anything).
> But the overhead here is not biting us (we just went through some
> off-list benchmarking that led to the inclusion of this check, in fact).

What we could do is just check list_empty(&inode->inotify_watchers)
and remove the atomic count completely.

We don't actually care about getting an exact count at all, just
whether or not it is empty, and in that case using list_empty is
no more racy than checking an atomic count, both are done outside
any locks.

It is basically just a lock avoidance heuristic. But I think count
is superfluous - off with its head!

SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.

Send instant messages to your online friends

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: 2005-06-17 03:34    [W:0.094 / U:8.080 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site