Re: [patch] sched: fix scheduling latencies for !PREEMPT kernels

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 03:02:49PM -0400, Robert Love wrote:
>> Getting rid of these, or at least better delineating them, will move the
>> BKL closer to being just a very granular lock.
>> cond_resched_bkl() is a step toward that.

On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 09:25:13PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> yes, I don't think it will make thing worse in respect of dropping the
> bkl, if something it should help.
> probably the bkl is still there because removing it won't bring much
> further value to the kernel at runtime, it'd probably only make the
> kernel a bit cleaner and simpler.

I think the real trouble is that the locking being so hard to analyze,
especially  when it's intermixed with normal locking, causes real bugs.


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