Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758531AbZJMAEE (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:04:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757316AbZJMAED (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:04:03 -0400 Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]:50648 "EHLO fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755027AbZJMAEB (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:04:01 -0400 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 From: KOSAKI Motohiro To: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [resend][PATCH] Added PR_SET_PROCTITLE_AREA option for prctl() Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Bryan Donlan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ulrich Drepper , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Timo Sirainen In-Reply-To: <20091012122246.a941013b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20091013022335.C741.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091012122246.a941013b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Message-Id: <20091013083744.C747.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.50.07 [ja] Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:03:22 +0900 (JST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1407 Lines: 38 > On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 04:03:45 +0900 (JST) > KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > > Start simple. What's wrong with mutex_lock() on the reader and writer > > > sides? rwsems might be OK too. > > > > > > In both cases we should think about whether persistent readers can > > > block the writer excessively though. > > > > I thought your mention seems reasonable. then I mesured various locking > > performance. > > > > no-contention read-read contetion read-write contention > > w/o patch 4627 ms 7575 ms N/A > > mutex 5717 ms 33872 ms (!) 14793 ms > > rw-semaphoe 6846 ms 10734 ms 36156 ms (!) > > seqlock 4754 ms 7558 ms 9373 ms > > > > Umm, seqlock is significantly better than other. > > Sure, but even the worst case there is 1,000,000 operations in 34 > seconds (yes?). 33 microseconds for a /proc read while under a specific > local DoS attack is OK! > > If so then all implementations are acceptable and we should choose the > simplest, most-obviously-correct one. Hm, ok! I had guessed you don't accept this slowness. but my guess was wrong. I have no objection to use rw-semaphoe if you accept it. -- 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/