From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Bill Huey <bhuey@lnxw.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
davidsen@tmr.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] remove the BKL (Big Kernel Lock), this time for real
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:43:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040917064321.GA8146@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040916225102.GA4386@nietzsche.lynx.com>
* Bill Huey <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.
a clarification: note that the current BKL is a special case. No way do
i suggest that the BKS is the proper model for any SMP implementation.
It is a narrow special-case because it wraps historic UP-only kernel
code.
our primary multiprocessing primitives are still the following 4:
lockless data structures, RCU, spinlocks and mutexes. (reverse ordered
by level of parallelism.) The BKS is basically a fifth method, a special
type of semaphore that i'd never want to be seen used by any new SMP
code. It is completely local to sched.c.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-17 6:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <2EJTp-7bx-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
2004-09-15 15:46 ` [patch] remove the BKL (Big Kernel Lock), this time for real Andi Kleen
2004-09-15 15:58 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-09-15 20:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-09-16 1:17 ` Nick Piggin
2004-09-16 14:28 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-09-16 22:29 ` Bill Huey
2004-09-16 22:40 ` David S. Miller
2004-09-16 22:51 ` Bill Huey
2004-09-16 22:54 ` David S. Miller
2004-09-16 23:01 ` Bill Huey
2004-09-16 23:33 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-17 6:43 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2004-09-17 7:21 ` Tony Lee
2004-09-18 5:44 Manfred Spraul
2004-09-18 13:09 ` Ingo Molnar
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-09-15 15:18 Ingo Molnar
2004-09-15 15:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-09-15 15:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-09-15 17:04 ` Ricky Beam
2004-09-15 19:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-09-15 18:28 ` Chris Wedgwood
2004-09-15 21:25 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-17 10:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-09-17 12:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-09-17 20:56 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-09-18 8:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-09-18 23:36 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-09-17 13:26 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-09-17 13:47 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-17 13:56 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-09-17 14:18 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-17 15:16 ` Linus Torvalds
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040917064321.GA8146@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=bhuey@lnxw.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=davidsen@tmr.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox