[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0805070800120.32269@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 08:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: AIM7 40% regression with 2.6.26-rc1
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Quite frankly, maybe we _need_ to have a bad BKL for those to ever get
> fixed. As it was, people worked on trying to make the BKL behave better,
> and it was a failure. Rather than spend the effort on trying to make it
> work better (at a horrible cost), why not just say "Hell no - if you have
> issues with it, you need to work with people to get rid of the BKL
> rather than cluge around it".
Put another way: if we had introduced the BKL-as-semaphore with a known
40% performance drop in AIM7, I would simply never ever have accepted the
patch in the first place, regardless of _any_ excuses.
Performance is a feature too.
Now, just because the code is already merged should not be an excuse for
it then being shown to be bad. It's not a valid excuse to say "but we
already merged it, so we can't unmerge it". We sure as hell _can_ unmerge
it.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists