Re: [patch-2.3.99-pre7-1] file_systems_lock refinement

From: Tigran Aivazian (
Date: Wed May 03 2000 - 04:21:07 EST

On Wed, 3 May 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> We are not talking about the number of mounted
> filesystems here - it's the number of filesystem _types_ that matters.
> rwlocks do not hurt, but I doubt that you'll ever notice the difference.

Alexander, I know (reasonably well) the difference between filesystem
types list and the vfsmntlist, thank you.

> If anything, fs/nls/nls_base.c may be more worth it - same problem, same
> solution, same chance to use rwlocks and potentially longer list to deal
> with.

ok, thank you for the pointer - I will have a look.

> > The ordinary spinlocks are too coarse for this purpose - there is no need
> > for mutual exclusion between, say, a process calling sysfs(2) and a
> > process reading /proc/filesystems or two processes reading from
> > /proc/filesystems..
> Works for me, but I don't think that it's critical - IMO you are fighting
> the contention that doesn't exist.

No, I am not fighting contentions that do or do not exist - I see even a
small chance of improving what is already perfect (Linux kernel) and
immediately take the appropriate action. But thank you for pointing out
other areas that require improvement.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 07 2000 - 21:00:11 EST