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, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>
> There's also every char device open() method - a rather long list in its
> own right. I'd be surprised if one in ten of them really needs it, but
> one has to look...

I don't think there are *that* many. I found only 83 instances of
"register_chrdev()" in the kernel, so the open methods should be pretty
limited.

Of course, some open methods call other sub-registrations, but you'd start
off by moving the lock_kernel() down just *one* stage.

So it literally should be:
- remove one lock_kernel/unlock_kernel pair in fs/char_dev.c
- add max 83 pairs in the places that register those things
- external modules will need to add it themselves some day.

> 1: We could add an unlocked_open() to the file_operations structure;
> drivers could be converted over as they are verified not to need the
> BKL on open. Disadvantages are that it grows this structure for a
> relatively rare case - most open() calls already don't need the BKL.
> But it's a relatively easy path without flag days.

I really don't think it's worth the pain. See above. The numbers aren't
that huge, and external modules simply aren't a pressing enough issue.

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-05-15 00:01    [W:0.150 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site