Joe Seigh wrote:
A bit sketchy. You can see a working example of this using
C++ refcounted pointers (which can't be used in the kernel
naturally, you'll have to implement your own) at
http://atomic-ptr-plus.sourceforge.net/
The APPC stuff is in the atomic-ptr-plus package if anyone is
wonderin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Paul E. McKenney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
OK, but in the above case, "do something" cannot be sleeping, since
it is under rcu_read_lock().
Oh, but that's not quite what the code is doing, rather it is doing:
rcu_read_lock
while get next element fr
Thanks, Paul, that's a great idea!
The approach I'm testing right now just does a module_get(mod), which
is released when you manually disable the module by echoing it's name
into /sys/kernel/security/stacker/unload, so that must be done before
you can rmmod. This way no refcounting is actually n
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:13:57PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Paul E. McKenney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 08:44:50AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Quoting Paul E. McKenney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > > My guess is that the reference count is indeed costin
Quoting Paul E. McKenney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 08:44:50AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Quoting Paul E. McKenney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > My guess is that the reference count is indeed costing you quite a
> > > bit. I glance quickly at the patch, and most of the us
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 08:44:50AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Paul E. McKenney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > My guess is that the reference count is indeed costing you quite a
> > bit. I glance quickly at the patch, and most of the uses seem to
> > be of the form:
> >
> > increment
Quoting Paul E. McKenney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 09:21:07AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On July 8 I sent out a patch which re-implemented the rcu-refcounting
> > of the LSM list in stacker for the sake of supporting safe security
> > module unloading. (patch reattach
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 09:21:07AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On July 8 I sent out a patch which re-implemented the rcu-refcounting
> of the LSM list in stacker for the sake of supporting safe security
> module unloading. (patch reattached here for convenience) Here are
> some performance
On July 8 I sent out a patch which re-implemented the rcu-refcounting
of the LSM list in stacker for the sake of supporting safe security
module unloading. (patch reattached here for convenience) Here are
some performance results with and without that patch. Tests were run
on a 16-way ppc64 mach
9 matches
Mail list logo
