[lkml]   [2000]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] getting rid of the Big Kernel Spinlock, 2.4.0-test7

On Mon, 28 Aug 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:

> Umm... I would not do that. Reason: right now BKL can be acquired
> while we are holding a spinlock. It's a bad idea, but it's possible.

hm, shouldnt we fix those places? It sounds extremely dangerous to get the
BKL with a spinlock held.

> With your change it becomes deadly. [...]

agreed, i missed that. Is there any core kernel code that does this? [the
VFS? :-)]

> Another reason: currently BKL can be taken in the middle of operations
> on per-CPU data. It will not block, so nothing will get that CPU while
> we are in lock_kernel(). Not true with your patch.

oops, another thinko indeed. Sigh. Are there any prominent examples of
this? I think we want to fix these.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.103 / U:0.408 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site