On 06/05, Al Viro wrote: > > 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?
And note that fs/seq_file.c:seq_hlist_next_percpu() has no other users. And given that locks_delete_global_locks() takes the random lock anyway, perhaps the hashed lists/locking makes no sense, I dunno. Oleg. -- 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/
