Messages in this thread | | | From | Zach Brown <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2 of 4] Introduce i386 fibril scheduling | Date | Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:44:28 -0500 |
| |
> Other questions really relate to the scheduling - Zach do you intend > schedule_fibrils() to be a call code would make or just from > schedule() ?
I'd much rather keep the current sleeping API in as much as is possible. So, yeah, if we can get schedule() to notice and behave accordingly I'd prefer that. In the current code it's keyed off finding a stack allocation hanging off of current->. If the caller didn't care about guaranteeing non-blocking submission then we wouldn't need that.. we could use a thread_info flag bit, or something. Avoiding that allocation in the cached case would be nice.
> Alan (who used to use Co-routines in real languages on 36bit > computers with 9bit bytes before learning C)
Yes, don't despair, I'm not co-routine ignorant. In fact, I'm almost positive it was you who introduced them to me at some point in the previous millennium ;).
- z
- 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/
| |