Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263028AbUDLTKs (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:10:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263031AbUDLTKs (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:10:48 -0400 Received: from bay-bridge.veritas.com ([143.127.3.10]:15860 "EHLO MTVMIME02.enterprise.veritas.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263028AbUDLTKq (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:10:46 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:10:38 +0100 (BST) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@localhost.localdomain To: "Martin J. Bligh" cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Rajesh Venkatasubramanian Subject: Re: [PATCH] anobjrmap 9 priority mjb tree In-Reply-To: <3360000.1081796512@[10.10.2.4]> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 746 Lines: 18 On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > > If it were just a list, maybe RCU would be appropriate. It might be > rather write-heavy though ? I think I played with an rwsem instead > of a sem in the past too (though be careful if you try this, as for > no good reason the return codes are inverted ;-() Yes, I think all the common paths have to write, in case the uncommon paths (truncation and swapout) want to read: the wrong way round for any kind of read-write optimization, isn't it? Hugh - 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/