On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Zach Brown wrote: > > Or we need some sort of enter_context()/leave_context() (adopt mm, files, > > ...) to have a per-CPU kthread to be able to execute the syscall from the > > async() caller context. > > I believe that's what Ingo is hoping for, yes.
Ok, but then we should ask ourselves if it's really worth to have a per-CPU pool (that will require quite a few changes to the current way of doing things), or a per-process pool (that would basically work as is). What advantage gives us a per-CPU pool? Setup cost? Not really IMO. Thread creation is pretty cheap, and a typical process using async will have a pretty huge lifespan (compared to the pool creation cost). Configurability scores for a per-process pool, because it may allow each process (eventually) to size his own. What's the real point in favour of a per-CPU pool, that justify all the changes that will have to be done in order to adopt such concept? - Davide - 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/
