On 7/10/06, Theodore Tso <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 07:49:31PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
> How about the use of lock/unlock_kernel(). Is there some hidden global
> synchronization going on? Every time lock/unlock_kernel() is used
> there is a tty_struct available. My first thought would be to turn
> this into a per tty spinlock. Looking at where it is used it looks
> like it was added to protect all of the VFS calls. I see no obvious
> coordination with other ttys that isn't handled by other locks.
No, it was just a case of not being worth it to get rid of the BKL for
the tty subsystem, since opening and closing tty's isn't exactly a
common event. Switching it to use a per-tty spinlock makes sense if
we're going to rototill the code, but to be honest it's probably not
going to make a noticeable difference on any benchmark and most
workloads.
I'm not looking for performance gains, I'm looking more to isolate the
tty code down to a minimal set of interactions with the rest of the
kernel. RIght now it is all intertwined.
--
Jon Smirl
[email protected]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
