"Adam J. Richter" <adam@yggdrasil.com> said:
[...]
> I suppose that running the child first also has a minor
> advantage for clone() in that it should make programs that spawn lots
> of threads to do little bits of work behave better on machines with a
> small number of processors, since the threads that do so little work that
> they accomplish they finish within their time slice will not pile up
> before they have a chance to run. So, rather than give the parent's CPU
> priority to the child only if CLONE_VFORK is not set, I have decided to
> do a bit of machete surgery and have the child always inherit all of the
> parent's CPU priority all of the time. It simplifies the code and
> probably saves a few clock cycles (and before you say that this will
> cost a context switch, consider that the child will almost always run
> at least one time slice anyhow).
And opens the system up to DoS attacks: You can't have a process fork(2)
at will and so increase its (aggregate) CPU priority.
-- Dr. Horst H. von Brand mailto:vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513 - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 15 2001 - 21:00:18 EST