From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Kurt Van Dijck <kurt.van.dijck@eia.be>,
Urs Thuermann <urs@isnogud.escape.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next-2.6] can: replace spinlocks with mutexes
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:00:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4DB02A7D.4010909@hartkopp.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1303313954.3186.117.camel@edumazet-laptop>
On 20.04.2011 17:39, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mercredi 20 avril 2011 à 17:31 +0200, Oliver Hartkopp a écrit :
>> This patch removes spinlocks for the CAN netdevice specific receive lists.
>> The RCU-based receive lists can be modified from process context or from the
>> netdevice notifier call. As both might sleep we can safely replace the
>> spinlocks with mutexes.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
>>
>> ---
>
> But... why ?
>
> A spinlock is faster/smaller than a mutex.
>
> Maybe you wanted to _remove_ spinlock, since/if writer hold RTNL and
> doesnt need to exclude another writer(s) ?
>
> Note : I did not check the RTNL assertion, you might add appropriate
> ASSERT_RTNL() calls just to be 100% safe.
>
I played a bit with rtnl locks but ran into problems with a lock sock when
enabling all locking debug techniques. Therefore i pull back my RFC for now
and leave the locking using spinlocks as-is.
Thanks,
Oliver
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-21 13:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-20 15:31 [RFC net-next-2.6] can: replace spinlocks with mutexes Oliver Hartkopp
2011-04-20 15:39 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-04-20 16:18 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2011-04-21 13:00 ` Oliver Hartkopp [this message]
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=4DB02A7D.4010909@hartkopp.net \
--to=socketcan@hartkopp.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=kurt.van.dijck@eia.be \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=urs@isnogud.escape.de \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).