Re: [PATCH, RFC] Remove fasync() BKL usage, take 3325

[Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>]

> 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.

> Having a single big lock here is quite possibly something we'll want to
> fix down the road, agreed, but until we can actually measure it hurting
> us, debating about whether to use a bit lock or reuse an existing lock
> or add a new lock to all struct files is a bit premature.

I think i would agree with you if we didn't have a better patch
already, but if there's one it doesn't make sense not to use it.

-Andi

-- 
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.