>be fixed to have fine grained locks - but just a bandaid to fix the worst
>scaling problems in 2.2 with minimal changes.
Agreed. But the changes you are talking about are not so minimal, and
neither are obviously right (they are safe I agree but not obviously
right), since as I just said an unlock_kernel won't release the kernel
lock for sure. If you change the caller over the time, then you'll find
yourself not releasing the kernel lock anymore.
If something has to be done in the meantime, according to me the _right_
solution is my one, where I use the property of all copy_from/to_user
call. They all can sleep so we can safely drop the kernel lock by hand
there at the higher level. Bloating the kernel with unlock_kernel all over
the place in the tcp/ip ext2 etc... code would be a really a dirty choice
according to me. That's at least my point of view.
Comments as always are welcome :-).
Andrea Arcangeli
-
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/