Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 Nov 2023 23:29:46 +0100 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] rxrpc_find_service_conn_rcu: use read_seqbegin() rather than read_seqbegin_or_lock() |
| |
sorry for noise, but in case I wasn't clear...
On 11/01, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 11/01, David Howells wrote: > > > > However, I think just changing all of these to always-lockless isn't > > necessarily the most optimal way. > > Yes, but so far I am trying to change the users which never take the > lock for writing, so this patch doesn't change the current behaviour. > > > I wonder if struct seqlock would make more sense with an rwlock rather than a > > spinlock. As it is, it does an exclusive spinlock for the readpath which is > > kind of overkill. > > Heh. Please see > > [PATCH 4/5] seqlock: introduce read_seqcount_begin_or_lock() and friends > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230913155005.GA26252@redhat.com/ >
I meant, we already have seqcount_rwlock_t, but currently you can't do something like read_seqbegin_or_lock(&seqcount_rwlock_t).
> I am going to return to this later.
Yes.
Oleg.
| |