On Wednesday 31 January 2007 18:15, Zach Brown wrote:
>
> On Jan 31, 2007, at 12:58 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > Do you have any numbers how this compares cycle wise to just doing
> > clone+syscall+exit in user space?
>
> Not yet, no. Release early, release often, and all that. I'll throw
> something together.
So what was the motivation for doing this then? It's only point
is to have smaller startup costs for AIO than clone+fork without
fixing the VFS code to be a state machine, right?
I'm personally unclear if it's really less work to teach a lot of
code in the kernel about a new thread abstraction than changing VFS.
Your patches don't look that complicated yet but you openly
admitted you waved away many of the more tricky issues (like
signals etc.) and I bet there are yet-unknown side effects
of this too that will need more changes.
I would expect a VFS solution to be the fastest of any at least.
I'm not sure the fibrils thing will be that much faster than
a possibly somewhat fast pathed for this case clone+syscall+exit.
-Andi
-
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]
