[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <482B65FE.4040402@firstfloor.org>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 00:21:50 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Alexander Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [announce] "kill the Big Kernel Lock (BKL)" tree
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 May 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> The goal less being to get rid of BKL in old drivers, but not
>> requiring BKL in new drivers. Basically all BKL assumptions
>> in interfaces really should go.
>
> No, we really do want to get rid of BKL in old drivers too. Or at least in
> the interfaces.
In the interfaces definitely yes and all subsystems should have their
own lock_kernel calls, but why in the old drivers? For those it's very
unlikely they are used on any SMP system anyways (e.g. anything
depending on CONFIG_ISA) or if they do only on 2 CPU systems.
Of course if you can find someone to do the work it wouldn't be
bad, just wouldn't seem like a particularly useful investment of time to
me.
Also it would be bad if the people who did such conversions didn't
actually test it and that's a great danger with many old drivers because
nearly nobody has the hardware (and if they do it won't be in a SMP system)
-Andi
--
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