[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1215081086.19689.6.camel@pasglop>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:31:26 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
ksummit-2008-discuss@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeremy Kerr <jk@...abs.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2008-discuss] Delayed interrupt work, thread pools
On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 03:12 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> writes:
>
> > The question is: is that significantly less overhead than just spawning
> > a new full blown kernel thread ? enough to justify the complexity ? at
> > the end of the day, it means allocating a stack (which on ppc64 is still
> > 16K, I know it sucks)...
>
> I looked at this a while ago. And right now kernel_thread is fairly light.
> kthread_create has latency issues because we need to queue up a task on
> our kernel thread spawning daemon, and let it fork the child. Needing
> to go via the kthread spawning daemon didn't look fundamental, just something
> that was a challenge to sort out.
Yes. I was thinking that if it becomes an issue, we could special case
something in the scheduler to pop them.
Ben.
--
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