[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101117015650.GD22651@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 20:56:50 -0500
From: Kyle McMartin <kyle@...artin.ca>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Kyle McMartin <kyle@...artin.ca>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
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 Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 05:50:41PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Blame me, I threw that out as a single point where this can be done.
>
> In fact, holding the signal spinlock was seen as a bonus, since that
> was used to serialize the access to the signal->autogroup access.
> Which I think is required.
>
> But yes, it does create problems for the allocation. It could be done
> as just a GFP_ATOMIC, of course, and on allocation failure you'd just
> punt and not do it. Not pretty, but functional.
>
Yeah, I didn't look any deeper than kernel/sched.c::sched_create_group,
but that would need to GFP_ATOMIC as well.
Looking at it now, so would alloc_rt_sched_group/alloc_fair_sched_group,
and we're looking at an awful lot of sleepless allocations. Not sure
that's a feasible plan.
--Kyle
--
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