lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [announce] "kill the Big Kernel Lock (BKL)" tree


On Wed, 14 May 2008, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> That in itself is a problem Ingo's stuff won't help with: We have lots of
> "magic" accidental, undocumented and pot luck BKL locking semantics
> between subsystems that are not even visible.

The good news is that I suspect they are going away. It probably is mainly
tty and /proc by now, and /proc is pretty close to done.

It's hard to have too many inter-module dependencies when most of the core
modules no longer even take the kernel lock any more.

In the VFS layer, we still have

- the ioctl thing, obviously. That's just mind-numbing "move things
down", not hard per se. But there's a *lot* of them (and I suspect the
huge majority of them don't actually need it, since they'd already be
racing against read/write anyway if they did).

- default_llseek(). Probably the same, just a lot less of it.

- superblock read/write.

and the latter one in particular is really dubious (we already have
"[un]lock_super()" around it all, I think).

The core kernel, VM and networking already don't really do BKL. And it's
seldom the case that subsystems interact with other unrelated subsystems
outside of the core areas.

So it's a lot of work, no doubt, but I do think we should be able to do
it. The most mind-numbing part is literally all the ioctl crud. There's
more ioctl points than there are lock_kernel() calls left anywhere else.

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-05-14 23:49    [W:0.123 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site