lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jun]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Optimize percpu-rwsem
On 06/05, Al Viro wrote:
>
> FWIW, I hadn't really looked into stop_machine uses, but fs/locks.c one
> is really not all that great - there we have a large trashcan of a list
> (every file_lock on the system) and the only use of that list is /proc/locks
> output generation. Sure, additions take this CPU's spinlock. And removals
> take pretty much a random one - losing the timeslice and regaining it on
> a different CPU is quite likely with the uses there.
>
> Why do we need a global lock there, anyway? Why not hold only one for
> the chain currently being traversed? Sure, we'll need to get and drop
> them in ->next() that way; so what?

And note that fs/seq_file.c:seq_hlist_next_percpu() has no other users.

And given that locks_delete_global_locks() takes the random lock anyway,
perhaps the hashed lists/locking makes no sense, I dunno.

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-06-05 23:21    [W:0.116 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site