Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 Jan 2009 07:15:57 +0100 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH, RFC] Remove fasync() BKL usage, take 3325 |
| |
> I have to agree with Christoph. The priority here is breaking down the > BKL and document all the things being protected by it and we've got a > reasonably obvious patch in that direction. Meanwhile, there's not > currently a pressing demand to make fasync in particular scale that I'm > aware of.
The classic case is a high throughput network server that uses async sockets. It has to call F_SETFL on each new socket it opens.
> Having a single big lock here is quite possibly something we'll want to > fix down the road, agreed, but until we can actually measure it hurting > us, debating about whether to use a bit lock or reuse an existing lock > or add a new lock to all struct files is a bit premature.
I think i would agree with you if we didn't have a better patch already, but if there's one it doesn't make sense not to use it.
-Andi
-- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
| |