Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:02:40 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
       Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
       "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>, kernel@kolivas.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, piggin@cyberone.com.au, akpm@osdl.org,
       wli@holomorphy.com, markw@osdl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Performance regression in 2.6.7-rc3
Message-ID: <20040616070240.GA25910@elte.hu>
References: <E1BaPwX-0007k0-00@gondolin.me.apana.org.au> <40CFB8FD.2010601@yahoo.com.au> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0406152009220.4142@ppc970.osdl.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0406152009220.4142@ppc970.osdl.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1072
Lines: 25


* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:

> I agree. However, I still think we should do my suggested
> "wake_up_new(p,clone_flags)" thing, and then have the logic on whether
> to try to care about threading or not be in schedule.c, not in
> kernel/fork.c.
> 
> The fact is, fork.c shouldn't try to make scheduling decisions. But it
> could inform the scheduler about the new process, and THAT can then
> make the decisions.

agreed, and i did it in a similar way initially (by adding the clone
flags to wake_up_process()) but went for the smaller patch. The only
reason i pushed it into fork.c initially was to avoid having to change
dozens of other files (most of them in various architectures) that use
wake_up_process(). It wasnt (and still isnt) clear at all whether we
want to do any fork/clone-time balancing.

	Ingo
-
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/