On 05/05/16 18:12, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 5 May 2016 16:14:56 +0100
> Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremonger at intel.com> wrote:
>
>> Fixes: a45b288ef21a ("bond: support link status polling")
>> Signed-off-by: Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremonger at intel.com>
>
> You know an uncontested reader/writer lock is significantly slower
> than a spinlock.
>
As we can have multiple readers of the active slave list / primary
slave, basically any tx/rx burst call needs to protect against a device
being removed/closed during it's operation now that we support
hotplugging, in the worst case this could mean we have 2(rx+tx) * queues
possibly using the active slave list simultaneously, in that case I
would have thought that a spinlock would have a much more significant
affect on performance?
