Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268306AbUIPWwE (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:52:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268310AbUIPWwE (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:52:04 -0400 Received: from smtp.Lynuxworks.com ([207.21.185.24]:57097 "EHLO smtp.lynuxworks.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268306AbUIPWvI (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:51:08 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:51:02 -0700 To: "David S. Miller" Cc: Bill Huey , davidsen@tmr.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: [patch] remove the BKL (Big Kernel Lock), this time for real Message-ID: <20040916225102.GA4386@nietzsche.lynx.com> References: <20040916222903.GA4089@nietzsche.lynx.com> <20040916154011.3f0dbd54.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040916154011.3f0dbd54.davem@davemloft.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040818i From: Bill Huey (hui) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1566 Lines: 34 On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 03:40:11PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:29:03 -0700 > Bill Huey (hui) wrote: > > > FreeBSD-current uses adaptive mutexes. However they spin on that mutex > > only if the thread owning it is running across another CPU at that time, > > otherwise it sleeps, maybe priority inherited depending on the > > circumstance. > > This is how Solaris MUTEX objects work too. Yeah, I know from Solaris Internals and FreeBSD can be considered a Solaris style kernel. In contract, I think the Linux community has a few things up on FreeBSD/Solaris style SMP. Specifically, the FreeBSD community has ignored a lot of the really hard work of pushing down locks in favor of "getting fancier locks", which only abuses thread priorities and the scheduler. A large part of it is because they have really create a very complicated SMP infrastructure that less than a handful of their kernel engineers really know how to use, 2-3, it seems. Judging from how the Linux code is done and the numbers I get from Bill Irwin in casual conversation, the Linux SMP approach is clearly the right track at this time with it's hand honed per-CPU awareness of things. The only serious problem that spinlocks have as they aren't preemptable, which is what Ingo is trying to fix. bill - 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/