[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch] sched: fix scheduling latencies for !PREEMPT kernels
    On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 21:25 +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

    Hi, Andrea.

    > On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 03:02:49PM -0400, Robert Love wrote:
    > > - you can safely call schedule() while holding it
    > > - you can grab it recursively
    > > - you cannot use it in interrupt handlers
    > the latter won't make it harder to get rid of at least ;)

    Indeed. I should not of lumped the last property in with the "things to
    get rid of", although it is one of the implicit rules of the BKL.

    We probably don't want to actually start disabling interrupts for no
    reason when we grab the BKL. ;-)

    Although the locks that replace the BKL can certainly be BKL-safe locks.

    > yes, I don't think it will make thing worse in respect of dropping the
    > bkl, if something it should help.
    > probably the bkl is still there because removing it won't bring much
    > further value to the kernel at runtime, it'd probably only make the
    > kernel a bit cleaner and simpler.

    I agree. Barring a few worst-case examples, I think the only reason
    going forward to reduce the BKL's use is cleanliness and simplicity. It
    is rather hard at times to find just what the BKL is locking.

    Robert Love

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

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06    [W:0.024 / U:5.648 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site