Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:48:45 -0800 | | From | george anzinger <> |
| |
Alan Cox wrote: > > > Both of these methods have problems, especially with the proposed > > preemptions changes. The first case causes the thread to run with the > > BKL for the whole time. This means that any other task that wants the > > BKL will be blocked. Surly the needed protections don't require this. > > The BKL is dropped on rescheduling of that task. Its an enforcement of the > old unix guarantees against other code making the same assumptions. Its also > the standard 2.4 locking for several things still > Yes, I am aware of the drop on schedule, but a preemptive schedule call should (can not) do this. Result, no preemption, i.e. the thread does not let anyone else in. Some how I don't think a long term hold, such as this is needed. Of course, if the code blocks (i.e. calls schedule()) often... but then we find folks using such code a pattern and learning tool. Remember this thread was started by just such a study.
George - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |