From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965219AbbJIJ2N (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Oct 2015 05:28:13 -0400 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:36452 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965133AbbJIJ2H (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Oct 2015 05:28:07 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 10:27:13 +0100 (IST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Andy Lutomirski , Christoph Lameter , Peter Zijlstra cc: Chris Metcalf , Luiz Capitulino , Gilad Ben Yossef , Steven Rostedt , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Tejun Heo , Frederic Weisbecker , "Paul E. McKenney" , Viresh Kumar , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: crazy idea: big percpu lock (Re: task isolation) In-Reply-To: <20151009090852.GJ17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Message-ID: References: <20151009090852.GJ17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 8 Oct 2015, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > I want to propose a new primitive that might go a long way toward > solving this issue. The new primitive would be called the "big percpu > lock". It took us 15+ years to get rid of the "Big Kernel Lock", so we really don't want to add a new "Big XXX Lock". We have enough pain already with preempt_disable() and local_irq_disable() which are basically "Big CPU Locks". Don't ever put BIG and LOCK into one context, really. Thanks, tglx