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 ;)
-Ryan
-
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 Dec 15 2001 - 21:00:25 EST