[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201007111231.18926.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:31:18 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Remove BKL from fs/locks.c
On Sunday 11 July 2010 00:01:10 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 11:51:40PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>
> >
> > I've taken a patch originally written by Matthew Wilcox and
> > ported it to the current version. Unfortunately, the change
> > conflicts with the use of lockd, which still heavily uses
> > the big kernel lock.
> >
> > As a workaround, I've made the behaviour configurable,
> > it either uses the BKL when it's enabled or a spinlock
> > when the BKL (and consequently nfs and lockd) are
> > disabled.
>
> Defintively not something we want in mainline. But keep poking
> the nfs guys to sort the lockd mess out for real.
Yes, that was the idea. This is the last patch I need to run
all of my machines without the BKL, so I spent a few hours
looking at how to fix lockd. When I couldn't figure it out,
I decided to do an evil hack that happens to work, in order
to build pressure.
Arnd
--
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