[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2 of 4] Introduce i386 fibril scheduling
> When parallelising "real work", I absolutely agree with you: we should use 
> threads. But you need to look at what it is we parallelize here, and ask
> yourself why we're doing what we're doing, and why people aren't *already*
> just using a separate thread for it.

Because its a pain in the arse and because its very hard to self tune. If
you've got async_anything then the thread/fibril/synchronous/whatever
decision can be made kernel side based upon expected cost and other
tradeoffs, even if its as dumb as per syscall or per syscall/filp type

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-02-03 00:57    [W:0.143 / U:0.812 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site