[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1510091022190.6097@nanos>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 10:27:13 +0100 (IST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@...hip.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: crazy idea: big percpu lock (Re: task isolation)
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I want to propose a new primitive that might go a long way toward
> solving this issue. The new primitive would be called the "big percpu
> lock".
It took us 15+ years to get rid of the "Big Kernel Lock", so we really
don't want to add a new "Big XXX Lock". We have enough pain already
with preempt_disable() and local_irq_disable() which are basically
"Big CPU Locks".
Don't ever put BIG and LOCK into one context, really.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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