From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 23 01:16:11 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5267F16A417 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:16:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ivoras@gmail.com) Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com (rv-out-0910.google.com [209.85.198.191]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15C6413C480 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:16:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ivoras@gmail.com) Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id l15so1193427rvb for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:16:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=gBEVGu9d4JefiW+T26R+QAnAjf5igwEaHv0yvnqc0o8=; b=CtDvJsrzVGa/qSkw0ZbDV383vA2p6gcW6jZZzOWPaGbiZ/52PbehUAruyZ48s3AHqipLgSvgeXxlFRK4PRzImy0VqqZ8kx2swppn6nG0x+Bf31C8juge0hegUkCxm/46ribL6BjhWK45FejLFChgIAWvUOT403lIKIqotQjYs6c= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=r7eLI+vS8Zzyh8tT91SXNHCsFiIFUfUzJMfBBw8RHlWhb3aUUwuw7czbbbpNYpJ1pMbNJujkUqKUvOwY8iUXEeWAIbSd92+VK6n60+KAFIVaoP6s0LACToIPwCK0j6AMTGEvjp2BIcNV8qicPuWgyP4UVu8ST5qCAWSBPFyzJJc= Received: by 10.140.249.20 with SMTP id w20mr2708110rvh.1193100426642; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:47:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.141.211.5 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:47:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <9bbcef730710221747w4d338e78mb9dbf5e2eb37908@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 02:47:06 +0200 From: "Ivan Voras" Sender: ivoras@gmail.com To: "Julian Elischer" In-Reply-To: <471D34D8.8020009@elischer.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <471BDA2E.9040801@elischer.org> <471D34D8.8020009@elischer.org> X-Google-Sender-Auth: b0278b845cde8642 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kthreads->kproc and back to kthread.. next patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:16:11 -0000 On 23/10/2007, Julian Elischer wrote: > If you wanted to limit CPU usage for a particular group of threads it > may be worth grouping them into a process and then you could have > some control over them with 'nice'. Kernel processes can be niced? Nice :) So, for example, in theory I could renice a geli thread that I don't want to eat much of my CPU from the userland? > The AIO threads need to be processes because each of them needs > a different address space that can be hacked to cover the address space of the > process they are working for. Ok, this is why we used kprocs for them... > The Idle threads couldbe in their own process so you can easily see how much cpu idle.. > There are many other reasons you may want to group kernel threads. > for example a single process with all teh interrupt threads in it might > be useful for accounting for interupts in some ways. So, mostly cosmetics :) (don't get me wrong, I have nothing against kthreads<->kprocs :) )