[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH]IPC locks breaking down with RCU
    On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 11:11:15AM -0700, mingming cao wrote:
    > A simple solution I could think of for this problem, moving the per_id
    > lock out of the kern_ipc_perm structure, and put it in the ipc_id
    > structure. Actually I did this way at the first time, then I agreed
    > with you that moving the per_id lock into there kern_ipc_perm structure
    > will help reduce cacheline bouncing.
    > I think that having the per_id lock stay out of the structure it
    > protects will easy the job of ipc_rmid(), also will avoid the wrong
    > preempt count problem caused by the additional check "if (out)" in
    > ipc_unlock() as you mentioned above.

    I took a quick look at the original ipc code and I don't understand
    something - it seems to me the ipc_ids structs are protected by the semaphore
    inside for all operations, so why do we need the spinlock in the
    first place ? Am I missing something here ?

    Dipankar Sarma <>
    Linux Technology Center, IBM Software Lab, Bangalore, India.
    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 13:30    [W:0.021 / U:35.936 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site