From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU r**ursive lock {XV}
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:41:08 +0200
Message-ID: <1240904468.7620.70.camel@twins>
References: <49F22465.80305@gmail.com> <20090425133052.4cb711f5@nehalam>
	 <49F4A6E3.7080102@cosmosbay.com> <20090426185646.GB29238@Krystal>
	 <20090426145746.1184aeba@nehalam> <1240854297.7620.65.camel@twins>
	 <20090427113010.5e3f1700@nehalam> <20090427185423.GC23862@elte.hu>
	 <20090427120658.35a858bb@nehalam>
	 <alpine.LFD.2.00.0904271219570.22156@localhost.localdomain>
	 <20090427203616.GB3836@ioremap.net>
	 <alpine.LFD.2.00.0904271340400.22156@localhost.localdomain>
	 <20090427144054.1fb9b7a6@nehalam>
	 <alpine.LFD.2.00.0904271506530.22156@localhost.localdomain>
	 <alpine.LFD.2.00.0904271525120.22156@localhost.localdomain>
	 <alpine.LFD.2.00.0904271619240.22156@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>,
	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@ioremap.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	kaber@trash.net, jeff.chua.linux@gmail.com, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com,
	jengelh@medozas.de, r000n@r000n.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	benh@kernel.crashing.org
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0904271619240.22156@localhost.localdomain>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 16:32 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > I left the commentary about "readers" and "writers", because in many
> > ways it's correct, and what the code actually does is very much to
> > emulate a reader-writer lock.  I put quotes around the uses in the
> > comments to high-light that it largely _acts_ as a reader-writer lock. 
> 
> Btw, I think it was Paul who pointed out that technically it's probably 
> better to call them "local" and "global" lockers instead of "readers" and 
> "writers".

exclusive vs non-exclusive is what the literature would call them in
most cases I think.

> That also probably clarifies the rules on when you use one over the other 
> (ie reading off all the statistics is a "global" operation, as is 
> obviously replacing the tables).
> 
> Of course, "readers" and "writers" is something most Linux lock people are 
> more used to. Or "brlock" for the old-timers, but that involves a heavy 
> dose of bad taste. The new use is much nicer, especially since it never 
> takes the global lock on _all_ cpu's (which was really a killer in so 
> many ways).
> 
> 			Linus