[lkml]   [2004]   [Jun]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Performance regression in 2.6.7-rc3

    * Linus Torvalds <> 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.

    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 14:03    [W:0.030 / U:59.960 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site