[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=fT-DCP40_U24zft-3owseW24px=Zq=LnEJ_FF@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 16:26:47 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH v3] sched: automated per tty task groups
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> THAT is why I think it's so silly to try to be so strict and walk over
> all processes while holding a couple of spinlocks.
Btw, let me say that I think the patch is great even with that thing
in. It looks clean, the thing I'm complaining about is not a big deal,
and it seems to perform very much as advertized. The difference with
autogroup scheduling is very noticeable with a simple "make -j64"
kernel compile.
So I really don't think it's a big deal. The sysctl handler isn't even
complicated. But boy does it hurt my eyes to see a spinlock held
around a "do_each_thread()". And I do get the feeling that the
simplest way to fix it would be to just remove the code entirely, and
just say that "enabling/disabling may be delayed for old processes
with existing autogroups".
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