Hello, Srivatsa.

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 06:43:54PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:

This approach (of using synchronize_sched()) also looks good. It is simple,
yet effective, but unfortunately inefficient at the writer side (because
he'll have to wait for a full synchronize_sched()).

While synchornize_sched() is heavier on the writer side than the
originally posted version, it doesn't stall the whole machine and
wouldn't introduce latencies to others.  Shouldn't that be enough?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun