> - We would now have some measure of task_struct concurrency. Read that twice, > it's scary. As two fibrils execute and block in turn they'll each be > referencing current->. It means that we need to audit task_struct to make > sure > that paths can handle racing as its scheduled away. The current > implementation > *does not* let preemption trigger a fibril switch. So one only has to worry > about racing with voluntary scheduling of the fibril paths. This can mean > moving some task_struct members under an accessor that hides them in a struct > in task_struct so they're switched along with the fibril. I think this is a > manageable burden.
That's the one scaring me in fact ... Maybe it will end up being an easy one but I don't feel too comfortable... we didn't create fibril-like things for threads, instead, we share PIDs between tasks. I wonder if the sane approach would be to actually create task structs (or have a pool of them pre-created sitting there for performances) and add a way to share the necessary bits so that syscalls can be run on those spin-offs. Ben. - 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/
