On Sat, Sep 21, 2002 at 06:58:15AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> as i've mentioned in the previous mail, 2.5.35+ kernels have a very fast
> SIGSTOP/SIGCONT implementation, which change was done as part of this
> project - a few orders faster than throwing/catching SIGUSR1 to every
> single thread for example.
That's good, but having an explict API for suspending threads is very useful,
since it can greatly simplify the already complicated signal handling in
highly threaded systems. It's something that your group should seriously
consider, since I expect some explicit thread suspension call to be implemented
in Posix threading standard, via their committee. Mainly, because of the
advent of heavily threaded language runtimes as standard programming staple.
It's a good thing to have regardless.
> so right now we first need to get some results back about how big the GC
> problem is with the new SIGSTOP/SIGCONT implementation. If it's still not
> fast enough then we still have a number of options.
I'm running out of things to say. ;)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
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 : Mon Sep 23 2002 - 22:00:34 EST