On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 10:02:23AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >I like this patch a lot. Even if we don't add the underlying mechanism
> >right now, adding migration_disable as an alias for preempt_disable
> >will much better document quite a number of the users.
>
> I'd have no problem with that, and it might make it easier in future to
> justify a more complex scheme.
What do you think, Mathieu?
Also, small nit: it ought to be migrate_disable to match the form of
preempt_disable.
> >>The task struct is not something we should just be carefree putting crap
> >>into because it is seemingly free :(
> >
> >Sadly, it is free at the moment. We can only fit 3 task_structs in an
> >order-1 SLAB,
> >with lots of slop.
>
> Well apart from more cacheline access, that's why I say seemingly free. But
> actually it uses up space we may like for something else in future and/or
> makes it harder to shrink down if any effort ever goes into that.
Yes, I'm just trying to draw the sad state of task_struct to people's
attention.
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
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]
