[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702051040160.14453@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:52:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-aio@...ck.org, Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...ibm.com>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2 of 4] Introduce i386 fibril scheduling
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Zach Brown wrote:
> > The 'pool' of kernel threads doesnt even have to be per-task, it can be
> > a natural per-CPU thing
>
> Yeah, absolutely.
Hmmm, so we issue an async sys_read(), what a get_file(fd) will return for
a per-CPU kthread executing such syscall? Unless we teach context_switch()
to do a inherit-trick for "files" (even in that case, it won't work if
we switch from another context). And, is it all for it?
IMO it's got to be either a per-process thread pool or a fibril approach.
Or we need some sort of enter_context()/leave_context() (adopt mm, files,
...) to have a per-CPU kthread to be able to execute the syscall from the
async() caller context. Hmmm?
- Davide
-
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