On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Davidlohr Bueso <d...@stgolabs.net> wrote:
>
> Instead of dropping percpu-rwsem, I was thinking we could instead look
> for opportunities to convert new users, for instance shinkers, where the
> write lock is also taken just for register and unregister purposes,
> similar to uprobes.
So if there really are useful use cases for this, I don't object to
the patch. It seems to just improve on a currently very low-usage
locking primitive.
And it's not like I conceptually mind the notion of a percpu rwsem, I
just hate seeing specialty locking that isn't really worth it.
Because as it is, with the current single use, I don't think it's even
worth improving on.
I _would_ ask that people who are looking at this also look at our
"lglock" thing. It's pretty much *exactly* the same thing, except for
spinlocks, and that one too has exactly two users (the documentation
states that the only user is stop_machine, but in fact file locking
does too).
Because that is another example of a complete failure of a locking
primitive that was just too specialized to be worth it.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
