> A syslet is executed opportunistically: i.e. the syslet subsystem
> assumes that the syslet will not block, and it will switch to a
> cachemiss kernel thread from the scheduler. This means that even a
How is scheduler fairness maintained ? and what is done for resource
accounting here ?
> that the kernel fills and user-space clears. Waiting is done via the
> sys_async_wait() system call. Completion can be supressed on a per-atom
They should be selectable as well iff possible.
> Open issues:
Let me add some more
sys_setuid/gid/etc need to be synchronous only and not occur
while other async syscalls are running in parallel to meet current kernel
assumptions.
sys_exec and other security boundaries must be synchronous only
and not allow async "spill over" (consider setuid async binary patching)
> - sys_fork() and sys_async_exec() should be filtered out from the
> syscalls that are allowed - first one only makes sense with ptregs,
clone and vfork. async_vfork is a real mindbender actually.
> second one is a nice kernel recursion thing :) I didnt want to
> duplicate the sys_call_table though - maybe others have a better
> idea.
What are the semantics of async sys_async_wait and async sys_async ?
-
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]
