Re: [RFC] Thread Migration Preemption

[Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>]

On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 10:02:23AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >I like this patch a lot. Even if we don't add the underlying mechanism
> >right now, adding migration_disable as an alias for preempt_disable
> >will much better document quite a number of the users.
> 
> I'd have no problem with that, and it might make it easier in future to
> justify a more complex scheme.

What do you think, Mathieu?

Also, small nit: it ought to be migrate_disable to match the form of
preempt_disable.
 
> >>The task struct is not something we should just be carefree putting crap
> >>into because it is seemingly free :(
> >
> >Sadly, it is free at the moment. We can only fit 3 task_structs in an 
> >order-1 SLAB,
> >with lots of slop.
> 
> Well apart from more cacheline access, that's why I say seemingly free. But
> actually it uses up space we may like for something else in future and/or
> makes it harder to shrink down if any effort ever goes into that.

Yes, I'm just trying to draw the sad state of task_struct to people's
attention.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.