lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: BKL removal
From
Date
On Tue, 2002-07-09 at 07:19, Dave Hansen wrote:

> Robert Love wrote:
>
> > The problem is, it is needed in a _lot_ of places. Mostly instances
> > where the lock is held across something that may implicitly sleep.
>
> And _that_ is why I wrote the BKL debugging patch, to help find these
> places at runtime. It may not be pretty, but it works. I'll post it
> again if you're interested.

I saw the patch... the problem is we cannot say "oh I ran this code path
with the patch and did not see anything, it is safe". Can sleep != will
sleep, and thus we have code that 99% will not sleep but it may.

I suspect on my 1GB machine I rarely page fault on copy_*_user but that
does not mean it could not sleep.

If you find all the culprits and think you can safely remove the
release/reacquire routines from schedule, all the power to you.

Robert Love

-
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: 2005-03-22 13:27    [W:0.184 / U:0.544 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site