> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
