![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
>> - We would now have some measure of task_struct concurrency. Read >> that twice, >> it's scary. > That's the one scaring me in fact ... Maybe it will end up being an > easy > one but I don't feel too comfortable... 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. > we didn't create fibril-like > things for threads, instead, we share PIDs between tasks. I wonder if > the sane approach would be to actually create task structs (or have a > pool of them pre-created sitting there for performances) and add a way > to share the necessary bits so that syscalls can be run on those > spin-offs. Maybe, if it comes to that. I have some hopes that sharing by default and explicitly marking the bits that we shouldn't share will be good enough. - z - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-01-31 18:41 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||