On Mon, 19 May 2008 19:34:27 -0700 Greg Banks <gnb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > This is the problem we have now with the BKL. So much of > > rpc/nlm/nfs/nfsd runs under it that it's nearly impossible to tell what > > it's intended to actually protect. > Practically none of nfsd runs under BKL, except the startup and shutdown > sequences and some of the write handlers for /proc/fs/nfsd/. You're quite correct. I was thinking mainly of lockd (which runs entirely under the BKL) and large swaths of NFS client and RPC code which also do. It looks like nfsd doesn't do as much under the BKL (and that is definitely a good thing!). > > If we're going to start a push > > toward BKL removal, my humble request is that we try to be as explicit > > as possible about what locks protect what data structures. > > > See comments in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c and net/sunrpc/svc.c. Here the BKL > is protecting the global nfsd_serv pointer. > Ok. Good to know. When I do the kthread conversion I'll make sure that's protected, though with Neil's mutex patch I shouldn't need to change much of the locking, if any. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
