From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268534AbUH3QRZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:17:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268535AbUH3QRZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:17:25 -0400 Received: from bi01p1.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.142]:53886 "EHLO linux.local") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268534AbUH3QRW (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:17:22 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 09:13:28 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Stephen Smalley Cc: Kaigai Kohei , "SELinux-ML(Eng)" , "Linux Kernel ML(Eng)" , James Morris Subject: Re: [PATCH]SELinux performance improvement by RCU (Re: RCU issue with SELinux) Message-ID: <20040830161328.GC1243@us.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@us.ibm.com References: <032901c486ba$a3478970$f97d220a@linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> <1093014789.16585.186.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <042b01c489ab$8a871ce0$f97d220a@linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> <1093361844.1800.150.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <024501c48a89$12d30b30$f97d220a@linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> <1093449047.6743.186.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <02b701c48b41$b6b05100$f97d220a@linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> <1093526652.9280.104.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <066f01c48e82$f4ec3530$f97d220a@linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> <1093880119.5447.87.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1093880119.5447.87.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 11:35:19AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 07:17, Kaigai Kohei wrote: > > I fixed the take-3 patch according to your and Paul's suggestions. > > > > The attached take-4 patches replace the avc_lock in security/selinux/avc.c > > by the lock-less read access with RCU. > > Thanks. Was there a reason you didn't move the rcu_read_lock call after > the avc_insert call per the suggestion of Paul McKenney, or was that > just an oversight? No need to send a new patch, just ack whether or not > you meant to switch the order there. One reason might be because I called it out in the text of my message, but failed to put it in my patch. :-/ Of course, if there is some reason why moving the rcu_read_lock() call is bad, I would like to know for my own education. Thanx, Paul