Messages in this thread | | | From | Jesse Barnes <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/2] fork_connector: add a fork connector | Date | Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:56:57 -0800 |
| |
On Thursday, March 17, 2005 1:04 am, Guillaume Thouvenin wrote: > +static inline void fork_connector(pid_t parent, pid_t child) > +{ > + static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(cn_fork_lock); > + static __u32 seq; /* used to test if message is lost */ > + > + if (cn_fork_enable) { > + struct cn_msg *msg; > + > + __u8 buffer[CN_FORK_MSG_SIZE]; > + > + msg = (struct cn_msg *)buffer; > + > + memcpy(&msg->id, &cb_fork_id, sizeof(msg->id)); > + spin_lock(&cn_fork_lock); > + msg->seq = seq++; > + spin_unlock(&cn_fork_lock);
As I mentioned before, this won't work very well on a large CPU count system. cn_fork_lock will be taken by each CPU everytime it does a fork, meaning that forks will be very slow if lots of CPUs are doing them at the same time. Is there a more scalable way to ensure message delivery?
Jesse - 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/
| |