![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Alan Cox wrote: > > > But my preferred option would indeed be just turning it back into a > > spinlock - and screw latency and BKL preemption - and having the RT people > > who care deeply just work on removing the BKL in the long run. > > It isn't as if the RT build can't use a different lock type to the > default build. Well, considering just *how* bad the new BKL apparently is, I think that's a separate issue. The semaphore implementation is simply not worth it. At a minimum, it should be a mutex. > > Is BKL preemption worth it? Sounds very dubious. Sounds even more dubious > > when we now apparently have even more reason to aim for removing the BKL > > rather than trying to mess around with it. > > We have some horrible long lasting BKL users left unfortunately. Quite frankly, maybe we _need_ to have a bad BKL for those to ever get fixed. As it was, people worked on trying to make the BKL behave better, and it was a failure. Rather than spend the effort on trying to make it work better (at a horrible cost), why not just say "Hell no - if you have issues with it, you need to work with people to get rid of the BKL rather than cluge around it". Linus -- 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/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2008-05-07 15:03 [W:0.262 / U:0.640 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | ||||||||||