From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:20:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:20:06 -0500 Received: from zero.tech9.net ([209.61.188.187]:51727 "EHLO zero.tech9.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:20:00 -0500 Subject: Re: BKL in tty code? From: Robert Love To: Alex Khripin Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20020130184950.GA22442@morgoth.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <20020130184950.GA22442@morgoth.mit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0.2 Date: 30 Jan 2002 14:25:59 -0500 Message-Id: <1012418760.3219.43.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2002-01-30 at 13:49, Alex Khripin wrote: > I'm very much a newbie, and I'm wondering about the big kernel locks > in tty_io.c. What exactly are the locks in the read and write for? Is the > tty device that contested? Couldn't a finer grained lock be used? It has less to do with lock contention and much more to do with the design of the tty / console layer. It isn't the kernel's prettiest code. There is probably some cleanup that is possible, but really getting the thing in gear (which means no BKL, which is probably the hardest part to rip out) require some level of rewrite. Robert Love