Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:46:03 -0500 | From | "Dmitry Torokhov" <> | Subject | Re: [patch 00/11] ANNOUNCE: "Syslets", generic asynchronous system call support |
| |
On 2/13/07, Alan <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote: > > A syslet is executed opportunistically: i.e. the syslet subsystem > > assumes that the syslet will not block, and it will switch to a > > cachemiss kernel thread from the scheduler. This means that even a > > How is scheduler fairness maintained ? and what is done for resource > accounting here ? > > > that the kernel fills and user-space clears. Waiting is done via the > > sys_async_wait() system call. Completion can be supressed on a per-atom > > They should be selectable as well iff possible. > > > Open issues: > > Let me add some more > > sys_setuid/gid/etc need to be synchronous only and not occur > while other async syscalls are running in parallel to meet current kernel > assumptions. > > sys_exec and other security boundaries must be synchronous only > and not allow async "spill over" (consider setuid async binary patching) > > > - sys_fork() and sys_async_exec() should be filtered out from the > > syscalls that are allowed - first one only makes sense with ptregs, > > clone and vfork. async_vfork is a real mindbender actually. > > > second one is a nice kernel recursion thing :) I didnt want to > > duplicate the sys_call_table though - maybe others have a better > > idea. > > What are the semantics of async sys_async_wait and async sys_async ? >
Ooooohh. OpenVMS lives forever ;) Me likeee ;)
-- Dmitry - 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/
| |