Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 May 2015 14:57:53 -0700 | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Optimize percpu-rwsem | From | Linus Torvalds <> |
| |
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> wrote: > > Instead of dropping percpu-rwsem, I was thinking we could instead look > for opportunities to convert new users, for instance shinkers, where the > write lock is also taken just for register and unregister purposes, > similar to uprobes.
So if there really are useful use cases for this, I don't object to the patch. It seems to just improve on a currently very low-usage locking primitive.
And it's not like I conceptually mind the notion of a percpu rwsem, I just hate seeing specialty locking that isn't really worth it.
Because as it is, with the current single use, I don't think it's even worth improving on.
I _would_ ask that people who are looking at this also look at our "lglock" thing. It's pretty much *exactly* the same thing, except for spinlocks, and that one too has exactly two users (the documentation states that the only user is stop_machine, but in fact file locking does too).
Because that is another example of a complete failure of a locking primitive that was just too specialized to be worth it.
Linus
| |