[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090123061557.GM15750@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 07:15:57 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
andi@...stfloor.org, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, oleg@...hat.com,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
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@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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