[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0910011257520.6996@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 13:03:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, jeff@...zik.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
jens.axboe@...cle.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
cl@...ux-foundation.org, dhowells@...hat.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/19] scheduler: implement workqueue scheduler class
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> Yeah. That scheme was hobbled by signal semantics: it looked hard to do
> the 'flip a reserve thread with a blocked thread' trick in the scheduler
> while still keeping all the signal details in place.
I think we should look at David Wheeler's advice: "Any problem in computer
science can be solved with another level of indirection".
In particular, my favourite solution to this is to split "struct
thread_struct" into a new part, which would be "CPU state".
In other words, all threadlets would share one single "struct
thread_struct" (and thus local signal state), but they would then each
have a "struct cpu_state" associated with them, which includes the kernel
stack. And that cpu_state thing would not be preempted, it would be
something like a round-robin cooperative scheduling that is only invoced
when a threadlet goes to sleep.
Linus
--
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