From: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>, "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>,
torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
paul.mckenney@us.ibm.com, andrea@suse.de
Subject: Re: 8-CPU (SMP) #s for lockfree rtcache
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 18:34:09 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020528183409.A23001@averell> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020528171104.D19734@in.ibm.com> <20020528.042514.92633856.davem@redhat.com> <20020528182806.A21303@in.ibm.com> <20020528.054043.06045639.davem@redhat.com> <m3bsb06zt7.fsf@averell.firstfloor.org> <1022605393.9255.116.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk>
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 07:03:13PM +0200, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-05-28 at 16:45, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > The next obvious benefitor IMHO is module unloading. Just putting
> > a synchronize_kernel() somewhere at the end of sys_delete_modules()
> > after the destructor makes module unloading much less nasty than it
> > used to be (yes it doesn't fix all possible module unload races, but a
> > large share of them and it makes the problem much more controllable)
>
> For 2.5 it would be much more productive to make sys_delete_module
> memset the entire vmalloced space of the module to an illegal
> instruction before returning
And gain tons of new atomic_incs and decs everywhere in the process?
I would prefer RCU.
-Andi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-05-28 16:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-05-28 11:41 8-CPU (SMP) #s for lockfree rtcache Dipankar Sarma
2002-05-28 11:25 ` David S. Miller
2002-05-28 12:58 ` Dipankar Sarma
2002-05-28 12:40 ` David S. Miller
2002-05-28 15:45 ` Andi Kleen
2002-05-28 17:03 ` Alan Cox
2002-05-28 16:34 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2002-05-28 18:10 ` Alan Cox
2002-05-28 17:24 ` Andi Kleen
2002-05-29 4:44 ` Rusty Russell
2002-05-28 15:49 ` Robert Love
2002-05-28 16:25 ` Dipankar Sarma
2002-05-28 17:09 ` Dipankar Sarma
2002-05-29 17:44 ` kuznet
2002-06-03 12:08 ` Dipankar Sarma
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-05-28 19:57 Dipankar Sarma
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20020528183409.A23001@averell \
--to=ak@muc.de \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=andrea@suse.de \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul.mckenney@us.ibm.com \
--cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.