[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1282894718.1975.1654.camel@laptop>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:38:38 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] sched: CFS low-latency features
On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 19:36 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > The only thing we might have to be careful about is what happens if the timer
> > re-fires before the thread completes its execution. We might want to let the
> > signal handler detect these overruns somehow.
>
> Hrm, thinking about it a little more, one of the "plus" sides of these
> SIGEV_THREAD timers is that a single timer can fork threads that will run on
> many cores on a multi-core system. If we go for preallocation of a single
> thread, we lose that. Maybe we could think of a way to preallocate a thread pool
> instead ?
Why try and fix a broken thing, just let the app spawn threads and use
SIGEV_THREAD_ID itself, it knows its requirements and can do what suits
the situation best. No need to try and patch up braindead posix stuff.
--
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