Le vendredi 20 août 2010 à 10:16 -0400, yao zhao a écrit :
> if it is not performance critical, you should use the
> read_lock/write_lock, it should make the readers happier than
> spinlock. the name "mutex" is a little bit confuse.
Yes, I mentioned the 'mutex' name oddity.
Point is :
We want to remove read_write locks. They dont fit the bill.
If performance critical, lot of readers -> RCU (a lot faster)
If not, or too much writers versus readers -> spinlock (a bit faster)
> synchronize_rcu() is not necessary when you only need to delete from a
> list as it is atomic.
Thats a rather strange and completely wrong claim. A big part of RCU job
is to have appropriate work done on deletes. Inserts are more easy (only
needs a smp_wmb())
Take a look at Documentation/RCU/* before saying such things ;)
Not only synchronize_rcu() is not enough to protect this kind of code,
but you need something stronger.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html