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

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 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.

Ingo
-
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: 2005-03-22 14:03    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans