Re: [PATCH 1/8] Notifier chain update

[Alan Stern]

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:

> The notifier interface is supposed to be *light weight*.

Again, where is that documented?

>  Adding locks 
> that get taken on every call basically changes the concept entirely.  The 
> cache misses notifiers add are measurable overhead, with locks being far 
> worse.

Which is worse: overhead due to cache misses or an oops caused by code 
being called after it was unloaded?

Do you have a better proposal for a way to prevent blocking notifier 
chains from being modified while in use?  Or would you prefer to rewrite 
all the callout routines that currently block, so that all the notifier 
chains can be made atomic and we don't need the blocking notifier API?

Alan Stern

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/