Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] spinlock: A new lockref structure for locklessupdate of refcount

[Ramkumar Ramachandra]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> There's one exception - basically, we decide to put duplicates of
>> reference(s) we hold into (a bunch of) structures being created.  If
>> we decide that we'd failed and need to roll back, the structures
>> need to be taken out of whatever lists, etc. they'd been already
>> put on and references held in them - dropped.  That removal gets done
>> under a spinlock.  Sure, we can string those structures on some kind
>> of temp list, drop the spinlock and do dput() on everything in there,
>> but it's much more convenient to just free them as we are evicting
>> them, doing dput() as we go.  Which is safe, since we are still have
>> the references used to create these buggers pinned down.

Dropping the spinlocks means more cores; unfortunately, a quad-core
seems to be the limit. Users must divide their time between reading
history and contributing to the present: some amount of persistent
data is a must on every user's machine. Pixel seems to be heading in
the wrong direction: that's what is stressing us out.

Ram
--
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/