Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()

From: Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Date: Fri Apr 21 2000 - 15:42:54 EDT

Next message: Linda Walsh: "Re: Session IDs & LUID point to consider."

Previous message: Richard Gooch: "Re: Announce: modutils 2.3.11 is available - the debugger's helper"
In reply to: Manfred Spraul: "[PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Next in thread: David S. Miller: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Reply: David S. Miller: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> kumon@flab.fujitsu.co.jp noticed that select() caused a high contention
> for the kernel lock, so here is a patch that removes lock_kernel() from
> poll().
>
> I tested that patch with 2.3.99-pre5.

This is not a good idea if we are trying to stabilise 2.4. I for one am
not in favour of making further changes now that require we reaudit every
damned block and char device again. Which btw is what your change requires.
Do this after 2.4. Yes its a contention issue, no its not as trivial as
your little fix implies

-
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/

Next message: Linda Walsh: "Re: Session IDs & LUID point to consider."
Previous message: Richard Gooch: "Re: Announce: modutils 2.3.11 is available - the debugger's helper"
In reply to: Manfred Spraul: "[PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Next in thread: David S. Miller: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Reply: David S. Miller: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 21 2000 - 15:51:38 EDT