Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422855AbXBANTO (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Feb 2007 08:19:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422863AbXBANTO (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Feb 2007 08:19:14 -0500 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:57928 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422855AbXBANTN (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Feb 2007 08:19:13 -0500 Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 13:19:04 +0000 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Zach Brown , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-aio@kvack.org, Suparna Bhattacharya , Benjamin LaHaise , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH 2 of 4] Introduce i386 fibril scheduling Message-ID: <20070201131903.GA24683@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Ingo Molnar , Zach Brown , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-aio@kvack.org, Suparna Bhattacharya , Benjamin LaHaise , Linus Torvalds References: <20070201083611.GC18233@elte.hu> <20070201130234.GA15257@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=unknown-8bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20070201130234.GA15257@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1324 Lines: 23 On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 02:02:34PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > what i dont really like /the particular/ concept above - the > introduction of 'fibrils' as a hard distinction of kernel threads. They > are /almost/ kernel threads, but still by being different they create > alot of duplication and miss out on a good deal of features that kernel > threads have naturally. > > It kind of hurts to say this because i'm usually quite concept-happy - > one can easily get addicted to the introduction of new core kernel > concepts :-) But i really, really think we dont want to do fibrils but > we want to do kernel threads, and i havent really seen a discussion > about why they shouldnt be done via kernel threads. I tend to agree. Note that there is one thing we should be doing one one day (not only if we want to use it for aio) is to make kernel threads more lightweight. There?is a lot of baggae we keep around in task_struct and co that only makes sense for threads that have a user space part and aren't or shouldn't be needed for a purely kernel-resistant thread. - 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/