- We would now have some measure of task_struct concurrency. Read
that twice,
it's scary.
That's the one scaring me in fact ... Maybe it will end up being an
easy
one but I don't feel too comfortable...
Indeed, that was my first reaction too. I dismissed the idea for a
good six months after initially realizing that it implied sharing
journal_info, etc.
But when I finally sat down and started digging through the
task_struct members and, after quickly dismissing involuntary
preemption of the fibrils, it didn't seem so bad. I haven't done an
exhaustive audit yet (and I won't advocate merging until I have) but
I haven't seen any train wrecks.
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.
Maybe, if it comes to that. I have some hopes that sharing by
default and explicitly marking the bits that we shouldn't share will
be good enough.
- z
-
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]
