[lkml]   [2005]   [Sep]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2.6.13] lockless pagecache 5/7
    I wonder if it may not be better to use a seqlock for the tree_lock? A
    seqlock requires no writes at all if the tree has not been changed. RCU
    still requires the incrementing of a (local) counter.

    Using seqlocks would require reworking the readers so that they can
    retry. Seqlocks provide already a verification that no update took place
    while the operation was in process. Thus we would be using an established
    framework that insures that the speculation was successful.

    The problem is then though to guarantee that the radix trees are always
    traversable since the seqlock's retry rather than block. This would
    require sequencing of inserts and pose a big problem for deletes and
    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: 2005-09-09 07:38    [W:0.019 / U:11.744 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site