Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: BKL removal | From | Robert Love <> | Date | 09 Jul 2002 14:29:11 -0700 |
| |
On Tue, 2002-07-09 at 07:19, Dave Hansen wrote:
> Robert Love wrote: > > > The problem is, it is needed in a _lot_ of places. Mostly instances > > where the lock is held across something that may implicitly sleep. > > And _that_ is why I wrote the BKL debugging patch, to help find these > places at runtime. It may not be pretty, but it works. I'll post it > again if you're interested.
I saw the patch... the problem is we cannot say "oh I ran this code path with the patch and did not see anything, it is safe". Can sleep != will sleep, and thus we have code that 99% will not sleep but it may.
I suspect on my 1GB machine I rarely page fault on copy_*_user but that does not mean it could not sleep.
If you find all the culprits and think you can safely remove the release/reacquire routines from schedule, all the power to you.
Robert Love
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |