> Now there's the question "if this is such a great approach, why not make
> all modules work this way, not just filesystems?". Easy: the magic
> scheduling approach impacts the scheduler, however lightly, and worse,
> we cannot put an upper bound on the time needed for
You are in principle describing RCU. These guys seem to have solved the
problem.
> magic_wait_for_quiescence to complete. So the try_count approach is
> preferable, where it works.
But the try_count approach hurts every user of the defined interfaces,
even if modules are not used. Is the impact on the scheduler limited
to the time magic_wait_for_quiescence is running.
If so, the approach looks superior.
Regards
Oliver
-
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 : Sun Sep 15 2002 - 22:00:26 EST