Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:34:48 -0700 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: [patch] sched: fix scheduling latencies for !PREEMPT kernels |
| |
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 03:02:49PM -0400, Robert Love wrote: >> Getting rid of these, or at least better delineating them, will move the >> BKL closer to being just a very granular lock. >> cond_resched_bkl() is a step toward that.
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 09:25:13PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > 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 think the real trouble is that the locking being so hard to analyze, especially when it's intermixed with normal locking, causes real bugs.
-- wli - 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/
| |