Re: global kernel lock
Richard Gooch (rgooch@atnf.csiro.au)
Sat, 14 Nov 1998 08:24:17 +1100
David S. Miller writes:
> Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 02:08:25 +1100
> From: Richard Gooch <rgooch@atnf.csiro.au>
>
> However, it looks like with an SMP machine that two processes can't
> concurrently read, say, a regular file and a fast (non-sleeping)
> device, since only one process can own the global kernel lock. I was a
> little surprised at this, since I thought we'd pretty much gotten rid
> of the global kernel lock in 2.1.x. Although, I have to admit I
> haven't been paying close attention.
>
> Anything which does anything referencing the vfs at all will need to
> have the global kernel lock the entire time still.
>
> Most inode only operations are protected with spinlocks, but not all.
> Same for some dentry stuff, and again not all.
Yep, OK. We need more fine-grained locking to be added. And verified.
> Don't expect things to "loosen up" until 2.3.x :-)
Oh, no. I wasn't thinking about changing 2.1.x. God no. Let's get 2.2
out the door first. I was thinking beyond that.
I know what I want for a Christmas present ;-)
Regards,
Richard....
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/