Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Removing the Big Kernel Lock

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the wait-i-thought-locks-made-it-secure dept.

Corrado writes "There is a big discussion going on over removing a bit of non-preemptable code from the Linux kernel. 'As some of the latency junkies on lkml already know, commit 8e3e076 in v2.6.26-rc2 removed the preemptable BKL feature and made the Big Kernel Lock a spinlock and thus turned it into non-preemptable code again. "This commit returned the BKL code to the 2.6.7 state of affairs in essence," began Ingo Molnar. He noted that this had a very negative effect on the real time kernel efforts, adding that Linux creator Linus Torvalds indicated the only acceptable way forward was to completely remove the BKL.'"

3 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  2. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  3. Re:I don't understand by QX-Mat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm brave enough to want per CPU microkernels (with a messaging master?). I envisage all multi-CPU systems addressing memory in an non-unified manor soon enough - it'll be like the jump from segmented addressing to protected mode, but for CPUs.

    The monolithic design is slowly forming a focal point in performance: something has to do a lot of locked switching - if SMP machines could do what they do best and handle IRQs and threads concurrently without waiting for a lock (they're better spent sending/receiving lockless messages), life would be easier on the scalability gurus.