Re: devfs: BKL *not* taken while opening devices

• Next message: Russell King: "Re: devfs: BKL *not* taken while opening devices"
• Previous message: Jason Crickmer: "VIA UHCI USB controller interrupt problems"
• In reply to: Arjan van de Ven: "Re: devfs: BKL *not* taken while opening devices"
• Next in thread: Martin J. Bligh: "Re: devfs: BKL *not* taken while opening devices"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>I like the idea. But, while we're at it, does anyone have a good enough
>>grasp of locking the the TTY layer that we can start peeling some of the
>>BKL out of there? Somebody was doing tests over a serial console here
>>and the lockmeter data showed horrible BKL contention and hold times.
>
> I really really doubt that fixing contention will make serial ports go
> faster...

I know :) It just takes extra explaining on my part whenever someone
sees the lockmeter data.

> it'll just move to another lock since I suspect we're
> just waiting for hardware

Just about any other lock is preferrable to the BKL. Should
ext2_update_inode() be blocked because someone hit "Enter"?

-- 
Dave Hansen
haveblue@us.ibm.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Russell King: "Re: devfs: BKL *not* taken while opening devices"
• Previous message: Jason Crickmer: "VIA UHCI USB controller interrupt problems"
• In reply to: Arjan van de Ven: "Re: devfs: BKL *not* taken while opening devices"
• Next in thread: Martin J. Bligh: "Re: devfs: BKL *not* taken while opening devices"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 30 2002 - 22:00:19 EST