Re: scalability of signal delivery for Posix Threads

From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew_at_wil.cx>
Date: 2004-11-23 03:07:05
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 09:51:15AM -0600, Ray Bryant wrote:
> Since signals are sent much more often than sigaction() is called, it would
> seem to make more sense to make sigaction() take a heavier weight lock of
> some kind (to update the signal handler decription) and to have the signal
> delivery mechanism take a lighter weight lock.  Making 
> current->sighand->siglock a rwlock_t really doesn't improve the situation
> much, since cache line contention is just a severe in that case (if not 
> worse) than it is with the current definition.

What about RCU or seqlock?

-- 
"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon 
the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those
conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse
to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince 
himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep 
he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." -- Mark Twain
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Mon Nov 22 11:10:45 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:32 EST