Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:02:40 +0200 | | From | Ingo Molnar <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Performance regression in 2.6.7-rc3 |
| |
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
> I agree. However, I still think we should do my suggested > "wake_up_new(p,clone_flags)" thing, and then have the logic on whether > to try to care about threading or not be in schedule.c, not in > kernel/fork.c. > > The fact is, fork.c shouldn't try to make scheduling decisions. But it > could inform the scheduler about the new process, and THAT can then > make the decisions.
agreed, and i did it in a similar way initially (by adding the clone flags to wake_up_process()) but went for the smaller patch. The only reason i pushed it into fork.c initially was to avoid having to change dozens of other files (most of them in various architectures) that use wake_up_process(). It wasnt (and still isnt) clear at all whether we want to do any fork/clone-time balancing.
Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |