Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 02:47:06 +0200 From: "Ivan Voras" <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: "Julian Elischer" <julian@elischer.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kthreads->kproc and back to kthread.. next patch Message-ID: <9bbcef730710221747w4d338e78mb9dbf5e2eb37908@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <471D34D8.8020009@elischer.org> References: <471BDA2E.9040801@elischer.org> <ffijts$tqt$1@ger.gmane.org> <471D34D8.8020009@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 23/10/2007, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> 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 :) )
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9bbcef730710221747w4d338e78mb9dbf5e2eb37908>