On Fri, 6 May 2016 11:32:19 +0100
Declan Doherty <declan.doherty at intel.com> wrote:
> On 05/05/16 18:12, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 May 2016 16:14:56 +0100
> > Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremonger at intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Fixes: a45b288ef21a ("bond: support link status polling")
> >> Signed-off-by: Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremonger at intel.com>
> >
> > You know an uncontested reader/writer lock is significantly slower
> > than a spinlock.
> >
>
> As we can have multiple readers of the active slave list / primary
> slave, basically any tx/rx burst call needs to protect against a device
> being removed/closed during it's operation now that we support
> hotplugging, in the worst case this could mean we have 2(rx+tx) * queues
> possibly using the active slave list simultaneously, in that case I
> would have thought that a spinlock would have a much more significant
> affect on performance?
Right, but the window where the shared variable is accessed is very small,
and it is actually faster to use spinlock for that.
