Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Optimize percpu-rwsem

[Al Viro]

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 02:57:53PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Because that is another example of a complete failure of a locking
> primitive that was just too specialized to be worth it.

<notices stale include in fs/file_table.c and removes it>

FWIW, I hadn't really looked into stop_machine uses, but fs/locks.c one
is really not all that great - there we have a large trashcan of a list
(every file_lock on the system) and the only use of that list is /proc/locks
output generation.  Sure, additions take this CPU's spinlock.  And removals
take pretty much a random one - losing the timeslice and regaining it on
a different CPU is quite likely with the uses there.

Why do we need a global lock there, anyway?  Why not hold only one for
the chain currently being traversed?  Sure, we'll need to get and drop
them in ->next() that way; so what?
--
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/