Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Jul 2006 22:16:55 -0400 | From | "Jon Smirl" <> | Subject | Re: tty's use of file_list_lock and file_move |
| |
On 7/10/06, Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 07:49:31PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote: > > How about the use of lock/unlock_kernel(). Is there some hidden global > > synchronization going on? Every time lock/unlock_kernel() is used > > there is a tty_struct available. My first thought would be to turn > > this into a per tty spinlock. Looking at where it is used it looks > > like it was added to protect all of the VFS calls. I see no obvious > > coordination with other ttys that isn't handled by other locks. > > No, it was just a case of not being worth it to get rid of the BKL for > the tty subsystem, since opening and closing tty's isn't exactly a > common event. Switching it to use a per-tty spinlock makes sense if > we're going to rototill the code, but to be honest it's probably not > going to make a noticeable difference on any benchmark and most > workloads.
I'm not looking for performance gains, I'm looking more to isolate the tty code down to a minimal set of interactions with the rest of the kernel. RIght now it is all intertwined.
-- Jon Smirl jonsmirl@gmail.com - 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/
| |