Hi,
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 09:42:27AM -0600, Thunder from the hill wrote:
>
> I don't think this is cool. I mean, think of how many times we use
> it, who will eat the overhead?
>
> We use it almost never... a few times per process at most. And the
> overhead will be nonexistent except in cases where the caller has to
> wait on the lock --- and in those cases it seems totally reasonable they
> *should* have to wait.
And how do you protect a caller from having to wait for the lock? You'd
need a lock count here, where you can only change the credentials when the
count is zero. But when will that ever be?
And btw, the count bumping/downing does cost. We need to do that sensibly.
Thunder
-- --./../...-/. -.--/---/..-/.-./..././.-../..-. .---/..-/.../- .- --/../-./..-/-/./--..-- ../.----./.-../.-.. --./../...-/. -.--/---/..- .- -/---/--/---/.-./.-./---/.--/.-.-.- --./.-/-.../.-./.././.-../.-.-.-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 31 2002 - 22:00:20 EST