Re: [PATCH 2 of 4] Introduce i386 fibril scheduling

[Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org>]

On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 01:52:13PM -0800, Zach Brown wrote:
> >let me clarify this: i very much like your AIO patchset in general, in
> >the sense that it 'completes' the AIO implementation: finally  
> >everything
> >can be done via it, greatly increasing its utility and hopefully its
> >penetration. This is the most important step, by far.
> 
> We violently agree on this :).

There is also the old kernel_thread based method that should probably be 
compared, especially if pre-created threads are thrown into the mix.  Also, 
since the old days, a lot of thread scaling issues have been fixed that 
could even make userland threads more viable.

> Would your strategy be to update the syscall implementations to share  
> data in task_struct so that there isn't as significant a change in  
> behaviour?  (sharing current->ioprio, instead if just inheriting it,  
> for example.).  We'd be betting that there would be few of these and  
> that they'd be pretty reasonable to share?

Priorities cannot be shared, as they have to adapt to the per-request 
priority when we get down to the nitty gitty of POSIX AIO, as otherwise 
realtime issues like keepalive transmits will be handled incorrectly.

		-ben
-- 
"Time is of no importance, Mr. President, only life is important."
Don't Email: <dont@kvack.org>.