Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 17 Aug 2003 17:05:34 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: Scheduler activations (IIRC) question |
| |
Jamie Lokier wrote:
>Mike Galbraith wrote: > >>>The point of the mechanism is to submit system calls in an >>>asynchronous fashion, after all. A proper task scheduling is >>>inappropriate when all we'd like to do is initiate the syscall and >>>continue processing, just as if it were an async I/O request. >>> >>Ok, so you'd want a class where you could register an "exception handler" >>prior to submitting a system call, and any subsequent schedule would be >>treated as an exception? (they'd have to be nestable exceptions too >>right?... <imagines stack explosions> egad:) >> > >Well, apart from not resembling exceptions, and no they don't nest :) >
Is it clear that this is a win over having a regular thread to perform the system call for you? Its obviously a lot more complicated.
I _think_ what you describe is almost exactly what KSE or scheduler activations in FreeBSD 5 does. I haven't yet seen a test where they significantly beat regular threads. Although I'm not sure if FreeBSD uses them for asynchronous syscalls, or just user-space thread scheduling.
- 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/
| |