Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:52:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:52:41 -0400 Received: from mailout02.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.17]:7873 "EHLO mailout02.sul.t-online.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:52:40 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Oliver Neukum To: Daniel Phillips , Roman Zippel Subject: Re: [RFC] Raceless module interface Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 20:53:52 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.1 Cc: Jamie Lokier , Alexander Viro , Rusty Russell , References:

In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <200209112053.52426.oliver@neukum.name> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 948 Lines: 25 > Now there's the question "if this is such a great approach, why not make > all modules work this way, not just filesystems?". Easy: the magic > scheduling approach impacts the scheduler, however lightly, and worse, > we cannot put an upper bound on the time needed for You are in principle describing RCU. These guys seem to have solved the problem. > magic_wait_for_quiescence to complete. So the try_count approach is > preferable, where it works. But the try_count approach hurts every user of the defined interfaces, even if modules are not used. Is the impact on the scheduler limited to the time magic_wait_for_quiescence is running. If so, the approach looks superior. Regards Oliver - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/