Le vendredi 20 août 2010 à 10:16 -0400, yao zhao a écrit : > if it is not performance critical, you should use the > read_lock/write_lock, it should make the readers happier than > spinlock. the name "mutex" is a little bit confuse. Yes, I mentioned the 'mutex' name oddity. Point is : We want to remove read_write locks. They dont fit the bill. If performance critical, lot of readers -> RCU (a lot faster) If not, or too much writers versus readers -> spinlock (a bit faster) > synchronize_rcu() is not necessary when you only need to delete from a > list as it is atomic. > Thats a rather strange and completely wrong claim. A big part of RCU job is to have appropriate work done on deletes. Inserts are more easy (only needs a smp_wmb()) Take a look at Documentation/RCU/* before saying such things ;) Not only synchronize_rcu() is not enough to protect this kind of code, but you need something stronger. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
