Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 21:49:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 21:49:32 -0500 Received: from h24-77-26-115.gv.shawcable.net ([24.77.26.115]:25003 "EHLO phalynx") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 21:49:23 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Ryan Cumming To: Torrey Hoffman , "David C. Hansen" Subject: Re: [RFC] Change locking in block_dev.c:do_open() Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 18:49:20 -0800 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On December 12, 2001 18:40, Torrey Hoffman wrote: > Ryan Cumming wrote: > > Why not use a read-write semaphore? The sections that require > > the module to > > stay resident use a read lock, and module unloading aquires a > > write lock. In > > addition to containing the evil, evil BKL, you might actually > > get a tangiable > > scalability gain out of it. > With some improvements in this area, massively parallel SMP systems > could parallelize module loading, and achieve thousands of module > load/unload operations per second (MLUOPS). Ha, yes, I can imagine how what I said seemed rather amusing. In case it wasn't clear, I mean we should use a read write semaphore to prevent things that require the module to be loaded from being -serialized against each other-. So, think being able to parellelize the actual -usage- of the module's functions. Module unloads would still be serialized, unfortunately ;) -Ryan - 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/