[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070201083611.GC18233@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 09:36:11 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...ibm.com>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2 of 4] Introduce i386 fibril scheduling
* Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com> wrote:
> This patch introduces the notion of a 'fibril'. It's meant to be a
> lighter kernel thread. [...]
as per my other email, i dont really like this concept. This is the
killer:
> [...] There can be multiple of them in the process of executing for a
> given task_struct, but only one can every be actively running at a
> time. [...]
there's almost no scheduling cost from being able to arbitrarily
schedule a kernel thread - but there are /huge/ benefits in it.
would it be hard to redo your AIO patches based on a pool of plain
simple kernel threads?
We could even extend the scheduling properties of kernel threads so that
they could also be 'companion threads' of any given user-space task.
(i.e. they'd always schedule on the same CPu as that user-space task)
I bet most of the real benefit would come from co-scheduling them on the
same CPU. But this should be a performance property, not a basic design
property. (And i also think that having a limited per-CPU pool of AIO
threads works better than having a per-user-thread pool - but again this
is a detail that can be easily changed, not a fundamental design
property.)
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists