From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bernd Petrovitsch Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] Remove fasync() BKL usage, take 3325 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:45:30 +0100 Message-ID: <1232707530.7914.23.camel@spike.firmix.at> References: <20090115153211.663df310@bike.lwn.net> <20090122065104.2787df2d.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090122221500.4c62aa54@tpl> <20090122213105.74142908.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1232689549.5202.385.camel@calx> <20090123061557.GM15750@one.firstfloor.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090123061557.GM15750@one.firstfloor.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andi Kleen Cc: Matt Mackall , Andrew Morton , Jonathan Corbet , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, oleg@redhat.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 07:15 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > I have to agree with Christoph. The priority here is breaking down the > > BKL and document all the things being protected by it and we've got a > > reasonably obvious patch in that direction. Meanwhile, there's not > > currently a pressing demand to make fasync in particular scale that I'm > > aware of. > > The classic case is a high throughput network server that uses async > sockets. It has to call F_SETFL on each new socket it opens. Am I the only one missing an (additional) socket()-like sys-call with an additional "flags" argument (somewhat similar to open())? O_NONBLOCK is another flag that may be set quite often/regularly (at least in my small world). Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services