[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <492A2DBF.3030208@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:29:51 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
hch@...radead.org, rminnich@...dia.gov, ericvh@...il.com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: poll: allow f_op->poll to sleep, take #3
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> And @sync might be useful depending on who's waking it up, so we
>> either need to change the wake interface or give it an easier way to
>> pass those parameters as received. The callback function isn't the
>> right place to ignore those parameters. It simply doesn't know why
>> the caller is passing them in or what they mean under the
>> circumstances.
>
> We'll likely eliminate the 'sync' parameter from the scheduler. It's
> not a flag that should be proliferated.
But it's still being used in quite hot paths (pipe, splice, socket)
and I don't really wanna mix up a change which can cause subtle
scheduling related performance regression into this patch. How about
using the dummy waitqueue hack for now and when removing the @sync
param, switch it to one of wakeup APIs? I'll be happy to add big /*
TODO */ comment in the function.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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