Re: [RFC] Change locking in block_dev.c:do_open()

[Ryan Cumming <bodnar42@phalynx.dhs.org>]

On December 12, 2001 18:40, Torrey Hoffman wrote:
> Ryan Cumming wrote:
> > Why not use a read-write semaphore? The sections that require
> > the module to
> > stay resident use a read lock, and module unloading aquires a
> > write lock. In
> > addition to containing the evil, evil BKL, you might actually
> > get a tangiable
> > scalability gain out of it.

<random sassing snipped>

> With some improvements in this area, massively parallel SMP systems
> could parallelize module loading, and achieve thousands of module
> load/unload operations per second (MLUOPS).

Ha, yes, I can imagine how what I said seemed rather amusing. In case it 
wasn't clear, I mean we should use a read write semaphore to prevent things 
that require the module to be loaded from being -serialized against each 
other-. So, think being able to parellelize the actual -usage- of the 
module's functions. Module unloads would still be serialized, unfortunately ;)

-Ryan