On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 12:14:29PM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> I think you may have mis-interpreted my words. *When* a schedule would
> block a synco execution try, then you do have a context switch. Noone
> argue that, and the code is clear. The sys_async_exec thread will block,
> and a newly woke up thread will re-emerge to sys_async_exec with a NULL
> returned to userspace. But in a "cachehit" case (no schedule happens
> during the syscall/*let execution), there is no context switch at all.
> That is the whole point of the optimization.
And I will repeat myself: that cannot be done. Tell me how the following
what if scenario works: you're in an MMX optimized memory copy and you take
a page fault. How does returning to the submittor of the async operation
get the correct MMX state restored? It doesn't.
-ben
--
"Time is of no importance, Mr. President, only life is important."
Don't Email: <[email protected]>.
-
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]
