Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:54:12 -0700
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
To: Bill Huey (hui) <bhuey@lnxw.com>
Cc: bhuey@lnxw.com, 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: <20040916155412.47649ba6.davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20040916225102.GA4386@nietzsche.lynx.com>
References: <m3vfefa61l.fsf@averell.firstfloor.org>
	<cic7f9$i4m$1@gatekeeper.tmr.com>
	<20040916222903.GA4089@nietzsche.lynx.com>
	<20040916154011.3f0dbd54.davem@davemloft.net>
	<20040916225102.GA4386@nietzsche.lynx.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 802
Lines: 17

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:51:02 -0700
Bill Huey (hui) <bhuey@lnxw.com> wrote:

> 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.

This is what Linus proclaimed 6 or 7 years ago when people were
trying to convince us to do things like Solaris and other big
Unixes at the time.
-
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/