[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1252688404.7126.40.camel@laptop>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:00:04 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
mikew@...gle.com, mingo@...e.hu, hpa@...or.com,
Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...tin.ibm.com>, container@...ibm.com,
sukadev@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][v6][PATCH 0/9] clone_with_pids() syscall
On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 09:47 -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
> | Also, if you're passing a struct, why not put nr_pids in there, and
> | replace clone_pid_struct with a simple array? That would give us
> |
> | struct clone_struct {
> | u64 flags;
> | u64 child_stack;
> | u32 child_tid;
> | u32 parent_tid;
> | u32 nr_pids;
> | u32 reserved1;
> | u64 reserved2;
> | };
> |
> | int clone2(struct clone_struct *cs, pid_t *pids);
>
> My only concern with this approach was the extra copy_from_user() in the
> common case (i.e when not using the extended features). I assume the
> overhead of copy_from_user() is small enough to be ignored ?
I would think so, esp for small structure, it would be a cache hot copy.
That is, for x86 I doubt it'll show up. No idea what hoops other arch
have to jump through to get copy_from_user() doing what it does.
--
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