Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:25:13 +0200
From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@novell.com>
To: Robert Love <rml@ximian.com>
Cc: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>,
       Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] sched: fix scheduling latencies for !PREEMPT kernels
Message-ID: <20040914192512.GA3365@dualathlon.random>
References: <20040914114228.GD2804@elte.hu> <4146EA3E.4010804@yahoo.com.au> <20040914132225.GA9310@elte.hu> <4146F33C.9030504@yahoo.com.au> <20040914140905.GM4180@dualathlon.random> <41470021.1030205@yahoo.com.au> <20040914150316.GN4180@dualathlon.random> <1095185103.23385.1.camel@betsy.boston.ximian.com> <20040914185212.GY9106@holomorphy.com> <1095188569.23385.11.camel@betsy.boston.ximian.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1095188569.23385.11.camel@betsy.boston.ximian.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 960
Lines: 26

Hi Robert,

On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 03:02:49PM -0400, Robert Love wrote:
> 	- you can safely call schedule() while holding it
> 	- you can grab it recursively
> 	- you cannot use it in interrupt handlers

the latter won't make it harder to get rid of at least ;)

> 
> 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.

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.
-
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/