> - We would now have some measure of task_struct concurrency. Read that twice,
> it's scary. As two fibrils execute and block in turn they'll each be
> referencing current->. It means that we need to audit task_struct to make sure
> that paths can handle racing as its scheduled away. The current implementation
> *does not* let preemption trigger a fibril switch. So one only has to worry
> about racing with voluntary scheduling of the fibril paths. This can mean
> moving some task_struct members under an accessor that hides them in a struct
> in task_struct so they're switched along with the fibril. I think this is a
> manageable burden.
That's the one scaring me in fact ... Maybe it will end up being an easy
one but I don't feel too comfortable... we didn't create fibril-like
things for threads, instead, we share PIDs between tasks. I wonder if
the sane approach would be to actually create task structs (or have a
pool of them pre-created sitting there for performances) and add a way
to share the necessary bits so that syscalls can be run on those
spin-offs.
Ben.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
