Re: 2.6.26-rc4: RIP find_pid_ns+0x6b/0xa0

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 09:11:33AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 27 May 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > 
> > But this will only help until preemptible spinlocks arrive, right?
> 
> I don't think we will ever have preemptible spinlocks.
> 
> If you preempt spinlocks, you have serious issues with contention and 
> priority inversion etc, and you basically need to turn them into sleeping 
> mutexes. So now you also need to do interrupts as sleepable threads etc 
> etc.

Indeed, all of these are required in that case.

> And it would break the existing non-preempt RCU usage anyway.

Yes, preemptable spinlocks cannot work without preemptable RCU.

> Yeah, maybe the RT people try to do that, but quite frankly, it is insane. 
> Spinlocks are *different* from sleeping locks, for a damn good reason.

Well, I guess I never claimed to be sane...

Anyway, will look at a preemptable RCU that waits for preempt-disable
sections of code.

						Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/