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.
Regards,
Tigran
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 07 2000 - 21:00:11 EST