On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 10:01:14AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This patch uses memory policies to attempt to improve this. It > > requires that we ask the scheduler to suggest the child's new CPU > > earlier in the fork, but that is not a fundamental difference. > > no fundamental objections, but i think we could simply move sched_fork() > to the following place: > > > @@ -989,10 +990,13 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process( > > if (retval) > > goto fork_out; > > > > + cpu = sched_fork_suggest_cpu(clone_flags); > > + mpol_arg = mpol_prefer_cpu_start(cpu); > > + > > retval = -ENOMEM; > > p = dup_task_struct(current); > > if (!p) > > - goto fork_out; > > + goto fork_mpol; > > > > rt_mutex_init_task(p); > > > _after_ the dup_task_struct(). Then change sched_fork() to return a CPU > number - hence we dont have a separate sched_fork_suggest_cpu() > initialization function, only one, obvious sched_fork() function. > Agreed?
That puts task struct, kernel stack, thread info on the wrong node. - 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/
