On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 10:01:14AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > This patch uses memory policies to attempt to improve this. It
> > requires that we ask the scheduler to suggest the child's new CPU
> > earlier in the fork, but that is not a fundamental difference.
>
> no fundamental objections, but i think we could simply move sched_fork()
> to the following place:
>
> > @@ -989,10 +990,13 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process(
> > if (retval)
> > goto fork_out;
> >
> > + cpu = sched_fork_suggest_cpu(clone_flags);
> > + mpol_arg = mpol_prefer_cpu_start(cpu);
> > +
> > retval = -ENOMEM;
> > p = dup_task_struct(current);
> > if (!p)
> > - goto fork_out;
> > + goto fork_mpol;
> >
> > rt_mutex_init_task(p);
>
>
> _after_ the dup_task_struct(). Then change sched_fork() to return a CPU
> number - hence we dont have a separate sched_fork_suggest_cpu()
> initialization function, only one, obvious sched_fork() function.
> Agreed?
That puts task struct, kernel stack, thread info on the wrong node.
-
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]
