From 608f44306a6f0d5692f5c81bcbfe7a621ec254ba Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kimplul <kimi.h.kuparinen@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 21:02:52 +0300
Subject: implement bkl

+ Start out using big kernel lock, apparently seL4 thinks its good
  enough. I might have a go at using a more fair lock, and possibly
  moving to more fine-grained locks if I really feel the need to get
  scalability up.
---
 src/uapi/ipc.c | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

(limited to 'src/uapi')

diff --git a/src/uapi/ipc.c b/src/uapi/ipc.c
index 3c24f1c..613d4a9 100644
--- a/src/uapi/ipc.c
+++ b/src/uapi/ipc.c
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
 #include <kmi/orphanage.h>
 #include <kmi/debug.h>
 #include <kmi/uapi.h>
+#include <kmi/bkl.h>
 #include <kmi/tcb.h>
 #include <kmi/ipi.h>
 #include <kmi/irq.h>
@@ -171,6 +172,8 @@ static __noreturn void __run_notify(struct tcb *t, struct tcb *r)
 	finalize_rpc(t, r, s);
 
 	clear_bits(t->notify_flags, flags);
+
+	bkl_unlock();
 	ret_userspace_fast();
 	unreachable();
 }
@@ -335,6 +338,7 @@ static void do_ipc(struct tcb *t,
 	/* I tested out passing the return values as arguments to
 	 * ret_userspace_fast, but apparently that causes enough stack shuffling
 	 * to be slower overall. */
+	bkl_unlock();
 	ret_userspace_fast();
 }
 /**
-- 
cgit v1.3