Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 1 Feb 2007 17:23:56 -0500 | From | Benjamin LaHaise <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2 of 4] Introduce i386 fibril scheduling |
| |
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 01:52:13PM -0800, Zach Brown wrote: > >let me clarify this: i very much like your AIO patchset in general, in > >the sense that it 'completes' the AIO implementation: finally > >everything > >can be done via it, greatly increasing its utility and hopefully its > >penetration. This is the most important step, by far. > > We violently agree on this :).
There is also the old kernel_thread based method that should probably be compared, especially if pre-created threads are thrown into the mix. Also, since the old days, a lot of thread scaling issues have been fixed that could even make userland threads more viable.
> Would your strategy be to update the syscall implementations to share > data in task_struct so that there isn't as significant a change in > behaviour? (sharing current->ioprio, instead if just inheriting it, > for example.). We'd be betting that there would be few of these and > that they'd be pretty reasonable to share?
Priorities cannot be shared, as they have to adapt to the per-request priority when we get down to the nitty gitty of POSIX AIO, as otherwise realtime issues like keepalive transmits will be handled incorrectly.
-ben -- "Time is of no importance, Mr. President, only life is important." Don't Email: <dont@kvack.org>. - 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/
|  |