* Suparna Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > maybe it will, maybe it wont. Lets try? There is no true difference > > between having a 'request structure' that represents the current > > state of the HTTP connection plus a statemachine that moves that > > request between various queues, and a 'kernel stack' that goes in > > and out of runnable state and carries its processing state in its > > stack - other than the amount of RAM they take. (the kernel stack is > > 4K at a minimum - so with a million outstanding requests they would > > use up 4 GB of RAM. With 20k outstanding requests it's 80 MB of RAM > > - that's acceptable.) > > At what point are the cachemiss threads destroyed ? In other words how > well does this adapt to load variations ? For example, would this 80MB > of RAM continue to be locked down even during periods of lighter loads > thereafter ?
you can destroy them at will from user-space too - just start a slow timer that zaps them if load goes down. I can add a sys_async_thread_exit(nr_threads) API to be able to drive this without knowing the TIDs of those threads, and/or i can add a kernel-internal mechanism to zap inactive threads. It would be rather easy and low-overhead - the v2 code already had a max_nr_threads tunable, i can reintroduce it. So the size of the pool of contexts does not have to be permanent at all. 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/