Eric Dumazet wrote:
Nick Piggin a écrit :
Would you just be able to add the atomic sysctl handler that
Christoph suggested?
Quite a lot of work indeed, and it would force to convert 3 int
(nr_files, nr_free_files, max_files) to 3 atomic_t. I feel bad
introducing a lot of sysctl rework for a tiny change (removing
filp_count_lock)
True, I didn't notice that.
This introduces lost update problems. 2 CPUs may store to nr_files
in the opposite order that they incremented atomic_nr_files.
That's true, and the difference can be relatively important in case of
preemption.
Each time the true and correct value (atomic_nr_files) is updated, a
copy is done on nr_files : as nr_files is only used to be a guard value
against too many file allocations, a somewhat 'lazy' value has no impact
at all.
OK, well I would prefer you do the proper atomic operations throughout
where it "really matters" in file_table.c, and do your lazy synchronize
with just the sysctl exported value.
Unless the fs people had a problem with that.
And you may as well get rid of the atomic_inc_return which can be more
expensive on some platforms and doesn't buy you much.
atomic_inc;
atomic_read;
Should be enough if you don't care about lost updates here, yeah?
Nick
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
