Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 18 December 2009, Dave Airlie wrote:
>
>> This looks good, I've taken this and I've squashed
>> the generic pieces of your RFC into this (i.e.
>> I haven't modified the drivers, but just added the
>> flag to allow the ioctls to be unlocked if the driver
>> select
On Friday 18 December 2009, Dave Airlie wrote:
> This looks good, I've taken this and I've squashed
> the generic pieces of your RFC into this (i.e.
> I haven't modified the drivers, but just added the
> flag to allow the ioctls to be unlocked if the driver
> selects them).
>
> Do you think we sho
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> drm_ioctl is called with the Big Kernel Lock held,
> which shows up very high in statistics on vfs_ioctl.
>
> Moving the lock into the drm_ioctl function itself
> makes sure we blame the right subsystem and it gets
> us one step closer to eli
drm_ioctl is called with the Big Kernel Lock held,
which shows up very high in statistics on vfs_ioctl.
Moving the lock into the drm_ioctl function itself
makes sure we blame the right subsystem and it gets
us one step closer to eliminating the locked version
of fops->ioctl.
Since drm_ioctl does
