Le mardi 15 mars 2011 Ã 20:48 +0100, Peter Zijlstra a Ãcrit : > On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 20:22 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > I am not sure if its a good idea to walk the tree > > > as and when the tree is changing either because of a insertion or > > > deletion of a probe. > > > > I know that you cannot walk the tree lockless except you would use > > some rcu based container for your probes. > > You can in fact combine a seqlock, rb-trees and RCU to do lockless > walks. > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/10/20/160 > > and > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/10/20/437 > > But doing that would be an optimization best done once we get all this > working nicely. > We have such schem in net/ipv4/inetpeer.c function inet_getpeer() (using a seqlock on latest net-next-2.6 tree), but we added a counter to make sure a reader could not enter an infinite loop while traversing tree (AVL tree in inetpeer case). -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>