Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:49:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:49:13 -0500 Received: from nat-pool-rdu.redhat.com ([66.187.233.200]:56688 "EHLO lacrosse.corp.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:49:12 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:58:54 -0800 Message-Id: <200302122158.h1CLwsM24601@magilla.sf.frob.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Roland McGrath To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Ingo Molnar , Subject: Re: another subtle signals issue In-Reply-To: Linus Torvalds's message of Wednesday, 12 February 2003 13:19:56 -0800 X-Fcc: ~/Mail/linus X-Shopping-List: (1) Inquisitive abolitionists (2) Subatomic soil skis (3) Mix 'n' Match Instant enema picnics (4) Fastidious trout (5) Chimerical pencils Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 786 Lines: 14 > Yeah. There's another issue too, which is the "preferred thread" thing. We > should probably _prefer_ threads that are interruptible as opposed to > threads that are in disk wait, the same way we prefer threads that are not > stopped. It might improve throughput. I am really only concerned with the correctness issues, and don't have much opinion on optimization choices like this. It think the tradeoffs on who it give it to vs the complexity of the scan and such depend heavily on how many threads you have and what they are doing. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/