On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
> mingming cao wrote:
> >
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > Here is the updated ipc lock patch:
>
> Well I can get you a bit of testing and attention, but I'm afraid
> my knowledge of the IPC code is negligible.
>
> So to be able to commend this change to Linus I'd have to rely on
> assurances from people who _do_ understand IPC (Hugh?) and on lots
> of testing.
>
> So yes, I'll include it, and would solicit success reports from
> people who are actually exercising that code path, thanks.
Manfred and I have both reviewed the patch (or the 2.5.44 version)
and we both recommend it highly (well, let Manfred speak for himself).
I can't claim great expertise on IPC (never on msg, but some on shm and
sem), but (unless there's an error we've missed) there's no change to
IPC functionality here - it's an exercise in "self-evidently" better
locking (there used to be just one spinlock covering all e.g. sems),
with RCU to avoid the dirty cacheline bouncing in earlier version.
And I rarely exercise IPC paths, except when testing if I change
something: I do hope someone else can vouch for it in practice,
we believe Mingming has devised a fine patch here.
Hugh
-
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 : Thu Oct 31 2002 - 22:00:25 EST