From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
To: Ray Bryant <raybry@sgi.com>
Cc: Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org>,
lse-tech <lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net>,
holt@sgi.com, Dean Roe <roe@sgi.com>, Brian Sumner <bls@sgi.com>,
John Hawkes <hawkes@tomahawk.engr.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: scalability of signal delivery for Posix Threads
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:07:05 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041122160705.GG25636@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <41A20AF3.9030408@sgi.com>
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 09:51:15AM -0600, Ray Bryant wrote:
> Since signals are sent much more often than sigaction() is called, it would
> seem to make more sense to make sigaction() take a heavier weight lock of
> some kind (to update the signal handler decription) and to have the signal
> delivery mechanism take a lighter weight lock. Making
> current->sighand->siglock a rwlock_t really doesn't improve the situation
> much, since cache line contention is just a severe in that case (if not
> worse) than it is with the current definition.
What about RCU or seqlock?
--
"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon
the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those
conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse
to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince
himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep
he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." -- Mark Twain
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-11-22 16:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-11-22 15:51 scalability of signal delivery for Posix Threads Ray Bryant
2004-11-22 16:07 ` Matthew Wilcox [this message]
2004-11-22 19:49 ` [Lse-tech] " Ray Bryant
2004-11-22 19:53 ` Andi Kleen
2004-11-22 16:22 ` [Lse-tech] " Andi Kleen
2004-11-22 16:51 ` Andreas Schwab
2004-11-22 16:54 ` Andi Kleen
2004-11-22 18:56 ` Ray Bryant
2004-11-22 19:22 ` Ray Bryant
2004-11-22 17:23 ` Philip J. Mucci
2004-11-22 21:26 ` Boehm, Hans
2004-11-22 21:34 ` Andi Kleen
2004-12-01 22:53 ` Brent Casavant
2004-11-22 21:27 ` Rick Lindsley
2004-11-22 23:39 ` Ray Bryant
2004-11-22 23:01 ` Boehm, Hans
2004-11-22 17:19 ` Robin Holt
2004-11-22 19:25 ` Ray Bryant
2004-11-23 20:42 ` Ray Bryant
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=20041122160705.GG25636@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk \
--to=matthew@wil.cx \
--cc=bls@sgi.com \
--cc=hawkes@tomahawk.engr.sgi.com \
--cc=holt@sgi.com \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=raybry@sgi.com \
--cc=roe@sgi.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox