[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Scheduler activations (IIRC) question

Jamie Lokier wrote:

>Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>>The point of the mechanism is to submit system calls in an
>>>asynchronous fashion, after all. A proper task scheduling is
>>>inappropriate when all we'd like to do is initiate the syscall and
>>>continue processing, just as if it were an async I/O request.
>>Ok, so you'd want a class where you could register an "exception handler"
>>prior to submitting a system call, and any subsequent schedule would be
>>treated as an exception? (they'd have to be nestable exceptions too
>>right?... <imagines stack explosions> egad:)
>Well, apart from not resembling exceptions, and no they don't nest :)

Is it clear that this is a win over having a regular thread to
perform the system call for you? Its obviously a lot more complicated.

I _think_ what you describe is almost exactly what KSE or scheduler
activations in FreeBSD 5 does. I haven't yet seen a test where they
significantly beat regular threads. Although I'm not sure if FreeBSD
uses them for asynchronous syscalls, or just user-space thread

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: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.088 / U:2.424 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site