Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:00:06 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Johan Bucht <jbucht@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kthread vs kproc Message-ID: <471A6C56.7010903@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <947010c30710201200t40f1d2eyef9cfa02e1cba12f@mail.gmail.com> References: <947010c30710201200t40f1d2eyef9cfa02e1cba12f@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Johan Bucht wrote: > Excellent, I was planning on prodding someone about this a while back, > hope this will give some measurable performance improvements without > sacrificing stability. > How much will this affect debuggability, will there be a higher chance > of thrashed call stacks and thus non-valid panic traces? > > Feels a bit strange that some callers expect a process when calling a > function that says it creates a thread, but I guess it's a bit late to > complain that noone made a kproc macro for aio et al. > What does aio actually need that requires it to run as a process? Aio actually needs to hook the user's address space into its own (it adds itself as a second user of the calling procesess's address space) so it can do the IO easily. As such it needs a separate process so that it can have an address space to do it with. My suggested work-around is to make the AIO an invisible kernel thread attached to the process that does the IO. that way it automatically has the right address space to work on. > > /Johan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?471A6C56.7010903>