Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] sched: CFS low-latency features

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 19:36 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > The only thing we might have to be careful about is what happens if the timer
> > re-fires before the thread completes its execution. We might want to let the
> > signal handler detect these overruns somehow.
> 
> Hrm, thinking about it a little more, one of the "plus" sides of these
> SIGEV_THREAD timers is that a single timer can fork threads that will run on
> many cores on a multi-core system. If we go for preallocation of a single
> thread, we lose that. Maybe we could think of a way to preallocate a thread pool
> instead ? 

Why try and fix a broken thing, just let the app spawn threads and use
SIGEV_THREAD_ID itself, it knows its requirements and can do what suits
the situation best. No need to try and patch up braindead posix stuff.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/