On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 09:38:11AM -0800, Zach Brown wrote:
> 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.
I'm still of the opinion that you cannot do this without creating actual
threads. That said, there is room for setting up the task_struct beforehand
without linking it into the system lists. The reason I don't think this
approach works (and I looked at it a few times) is that many things end
up requiring special handling: things like permissions, signals, FPU state,
segment registers.... The list ends up looking exactly the way task_struct
is, making the actual savings very small.
What the fibrils approach is useful for is the launching of the thread
initially, as you don't have to retain things like the current FPU state,
change segment registers, etc. Changing the stack is cheap, the rest of
the work is not.
-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]
