* Bill Huey <[email protected]> wrote:
> > but it _is_ already being reaped in another thread: softirq-rcu.
> > Splitting that up any further will only fragment the
> > context-switching and increases cache footprint - it wont (or
> > rather, shouldnt) have any functional effect. (As a sidenote, i'm
> > considering the unification of all 'same default priority' softirq
> > threads into a single thread per CPU, to further reduce this cost of
> > 'spreadout'.)
>
> I overloaded another reaping thread that was doing largely similar
> functionality in that it was also reaping, so I don't think it's that
> bad. I did it from a cleanliness point of view with the code tree.
> It's the "desched_thread" in fork.c that I'm using. It seems to be the
> right thing to do. I'm sure Esben will follow up on this.
the reason why i added desched_thread was not because it's "more right"
to do this from a separate context, but simply because the resource
freed by it is not being freed via RCU by the upstream kernel. If that
resource (mm_struct) were freed by RCU we'd have its rt-friendly
reapdown "for free" and no desched_thread would be needed at all.
Ingo
-
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]
