Re: [RFC] Change locking in block_dev.c:do_open()

From: Ryan Cumming (
Date: Wed Dec 12 2001 - 21:49:20 EST

On December 12, 2001 18:40, Torrey Hoffman wrote:
> Ryan Cumming wrote:
> > Why not use a read-write semaphore? The sections that require
> > the module to
> > stay resident use a read lock, and module unloading aquires a
> > write lock. In
> > addition to containing the evil, evil BKL, you might actually
> > get a tangiable
> > scalability gain out of it.

<random sassing snipped>

> With some improvements in this area, massively parallel SMP systems
> could parallelize module loading, and achieve thousands of module
> load/unload operations per second (MLUOPS).

Ha, yes, I can imagine how what I said seemed rather amusing. In case it
wasn't clear, I mean we should use a read write semaphore to prevent things
that require the module to be loaded from being -serialized against each
other-. So, think being able to parellelize the actual -usage- of the
module's functions. Module unloads would still be serialized, unfortunately ;)

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 15 2001 - 21:00:25 EST