From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <570E8620.60508@hpe.com> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:47:12 -0400 From: Waiman Long MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christoph Lameter CC: Alexander Viro , Jan Kara , Jeff Layton , "J. Bruce Fields" , Tejun Heo , , , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Andi Kleen , Dave Chinner , Boqun Feng , Scott J Norton , Douglas Hatch Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] lib/percpu-list: Per-cpu list with associated per-cpu locks References: <1460501686-37096-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> <1460501686-37096-2-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 04/13/2016 11:03 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 12 Apr 2016, Waiman Long wrote: > >> List entry insertion is strictly per cpu. List deletion, however, can >> happen in a cpu other than the one that did the insertion. So we still >> need lock to protect the list. Because of that, there may still be >> a small amount of contention when deletion is being done. > Ok then the list is not per cpu anymore. Can we call this something else > please to avoid confusion? Spinlocks in per cpu structures are a bit > confusing otherwise. Seems that there is no requirement that the list can > only be accessed from a single cpu so its not per cpu per se anymore. > > Maybe lock-list instead of percpu-list? > I am fine with a name change. I am not that good in naming stuff. How about distributed and locked list, or dlock_list in short? Cheers, Longman