On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Zach Brown wrote:
> > Or we need some sort of enter_context()/leave_context() (adopt mm, files,
> > ...) to have a per-CPU kthread to be able to execute the syscall from the
> > async() caller context.
>
> I believe that's what Ingo is hoping for, yes.
Ok, but then we should ask ourselves if it's really worth to have a
per-CPU pool (that will require quite a few changes to the current way
of doing things), or a per-process pool (that would basically work as is).
What advantage gives us a per-CPU pool?
Setup cost? Not really IMO. Thread creation is pretty cheap, and a typical
process using async will have a pretty huge lifespan (compared to the pool
creation cost).
Configurability scores for a per-process pool, because it may allow each
process (eventually) to size his own.
What's the real point in favour of a per-CPU pool, that justify all the
changes that will have to be done in order to adopt such concept?
- Davide
-
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]
