* Zach Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch introduces the notion of a 'fibril'. It's meant to be a
> lighter kernel thread. [...]
as per my other email, i dont really like this concept. This is the
killer:
> [...] There can be multiple of them in the process of executing for a
> given task_struct, but only one can every be actively running at a
> time. [...]
there's almost no scheduling cost from being able to arbitrarily
schedule a kernel thread - but there are /huge/ benefits in it.
would it be hard to redo your AIO patches based on a pool of plain
simple kernel threads?
We could even extend the scheduling properties of kernel threads so that
they could also be 'companion threads' of any given user-space task.
(i.e. they'd always schedule on the same CPu as that user-space task)
I bet most of the real benefit would come from co-scheduling them on the
same CPU. But this should be a performance property, not a basic design
property. (And i also think that having a limited per-CPU pool of AIO
threads works better than having a per-user-thread pool - but again this
is a detail that can be easily changed, not a fundamental design
property.)
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
