lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH, RFC] Remove fasync() BKL usage, take 3325
    On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:09:35 +0100
    Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:

    > > OK, replacing a lock_kernel() with a spin_lock(&global_lock) is
    > > pretty straightforwad. But it's really really sad. It basically
    > > leaves a great big FIXME in there. It'd be better to fix it.
    >
    > Also it might be that it's even worse than the BKL.

    I don't quite see how now. Like the BKL, it's a spinlock.

    > It would still require a bitlock because some state in the low
    > level fasync needs to be protected.
    >
    > Oleg has a proposal to do this using a flag bit which seemed
    > reasonable to me.

    I didn't see a reason to add a one-off custom locking regime for such a
    non-hot-path situation. But it would certainly work; if we want to go
    that way I'll not fight it.

    jon


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-01-23 06:25    [W:0.020 / U:61.356 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site