On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 10:02:23AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > >I like this patch a lot. Even if we don't add the underlying mechanism > >right now, adding migration_disable as an alias for preempt_disable > >will much better document quite a number of the users. > > I'd have no problem with that, and it might make it easier in future to > justify a more complex scheme.
What do you think, Mathieu? Also, small nit: it ought to be migrate_disable to match the form of preempt_disable. > >>The task struct is not something we should just be carefree putting crap > >>into because it is seemingly free :( > > > >Sadly, it is free at the moment. We can only fit 3 task_structs in an > >order-1 SLAB, > >with lots of slop. > > Well apart from more cacheline access, that's why I say seemingly free. But > actually it uses up space we may like for something else in future and/or > makes it harder to shrink down if any effort ever goes into that. Yes, I'm just trying to draw the sad state of task_struct to people's attention. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - 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/
