Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932297AbXBWM0s (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:26:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932301AbXBWM0s (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:26:48 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:52432 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932297AbXBWM0r (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:26:47 -0500 Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 13:17:51 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: "Michael K. Edwards" Cc: Evgeniy Polyakov , Ulrich Drepper , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Arjan van de Ven , Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , Alan Cox , Zach Brown , "David S. Miller" , Suparna Bhattacharya , Davide Libenzi , Jens Axboe , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [patch 00/13] Syslets, "Threadlets", generic AIO support, v3 Message-ID: <20070223121751.GA6626@elte.hu> References: <20070221211355.GA7302@elte.hu> <20070221233111.GB5895@elte.hu> <45DCD9E5.2010106@redhat.com> <20070222074044.GA4158@elte.hu> <20070222113148.GA3781@2ka.mipt.ru> <20070222125931.GB25788@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1459 Lines: 32 * Michael K. Edwards wrote: > On 2/22/07, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > maybe it will, maybe it wont. Lets try? There is no true difference > > between having a 'request structure' that represents the current > > state of the HTTP connection plus a statemachine that moves that > > request between various queues, and a 'kernel stack' that goes in > > and out of runnable state and carries its processing state in its > > stack - other than the amount of RAM they take. (the kernel stack is > > 4K at a minimum - so with a million outstanding requests they would > > use up 4 GB of RAM. With 20k outstanding requests it's 80 MB of RAM > > - that's acceptable.) > > This is a fundamental misconception. [...] > The scheduler, on the other hand, has to blow and reload all of the > hidden state associated with force-loading the PC and wherever your > architecture keeps its TLS (maybe not the whole TLB, but not nothing, > either). [...] please read up a bit more about how the Linux scheduler works. Maybe even read the code if in doubt? In any case, please direct kernel newbie questions to http://kernelnewbies.org/, not linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org. 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/