Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Jul 2006 21:29:04 -0400 | From | Theodore Tso <> | Subject | Re: tty's use of file_list_lock and file_move |
| |
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 07:49:31PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote: > How about the use of lock/unlock_kernel(). Is there some hidden global > synchronization going on? Every time lock/unlock_kernel() is used > there is a tty_struct available. My first thought would be to turn > this into a per tty spinlock. Looking at where it is used it looks > like it was added to protect all of the VFS calls. I see no obvious > coordination with other ttys that isn't handled by other locks.
No, it was just a case of not being worth it to get rid of the BKL for the tty subsystem, since opening and closing tty's isn't exactly a common event. Switching it to use a per-tty spinlock makes sense if we're going to rototill the code, but to be honest it's probably not going to make a noticeable difference on any benchmark and most workloads.
- Ted - 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/
| |