On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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)
for writers more than readers of course spin will be better, that is
what read/write lock for and spin for.
But the case here is whether these register_ip_vs_scheduler or
unregister are more frequent than the readers.
if not definitely read_lock will better than spin_lock. although worse than rcu.
>> 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.
The code here is deleting a global from the list, am I right? I didn't
see any called case.
what are you going to do more? free it? write_unlock_bh should make the mb.
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