rename the ksoftirqd kernel thread.

rename the ksoftirqd kernel thread.

Post by Martin Hick » Fri, 16 May 2003 23:20:13



Marcelo,

Please consider this patch for 2.4.22-pre

It just renames the ksoftirqd kernel thread to be the same as in 2.5.

The side effect is that on machines with > 100 processors the last
number in the thread name doesn't get truncated.  

The patch is against linux-2.4 bk.

thanks
mh

--

# This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
# Project Name: Linux kernel tree
# This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher.
# This patch includes the following deltas:
#                  ChangeSet    1.1210  -> 1.1211
#           kernel/softirq.c    1.11    -> 1.12  
#
# The following is the BitKeeper ChangeSet Log
# --------------------------------------------

# Rename the ksoftirqd thread to be the same as in 2.5.
# --------------------------------------------
#
diff -Nru a/kernel/softirq.c b/kernel/softirq.c
--- a/kernel/softirq.c  Thu May 15 17:13:08 2003

        while (smp_processor_id() != cpu)
                schedule();

-       sprintf(current->comm, "ksoftirqd_CPU%d", bind_cpu);
+       sprintf(current->comm, "ksoftirqd/%d", bind_cpu);

        __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
        mb();
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in

More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

 
 
 

rename the ksoftirqd kernel thread.

Post by J.A. Magallo » Sat, 17 May 2003 00:00:18



> Marcelo,

> Please consider this patch for 2.4.22-pre

> It just renames the ksoftirqd kernel thread to be the same as in 2.5.

> The side effect is that on machines with > 100 processors the last
> number in the thread name doesn't get truncated.  

> The patch is against linux-2.4 bk.

> thanks
> mh

> --

> # This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
> # Project Name: Linux kernel tree
> # This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher.
> # This patch includes the following deltas:
> #             ChangeSet    1.1210  -> 1.1211
> #      kernel/softirq.c    1.11    -> 1.12  
> #
> # The following is the BitKeeper ChangeSet Log
> # --------------------------------------------

> # Rename the ksoftirqd thread to be the same as in 2.5.
> # --------------------------------------------
> #
> diff -Nru a/kernel/softirq.c b/kernel/softirq.c
> --- a/kernel/softirq.c     Thu May 15 17:13:08 2003
> +++ b/kernel/softirq.c     Thu May 15 17:13:08 2003

>    while (smp_processor_id() != cpu)
>            schedule();

> -  sprintf(current->comm, "ksoftirqd_CPU%d", bind_cpu);
> +  sprintf(current->comm, "ksoftirqd/%d", bind_cpu);

>    __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
>    mb();

Standard Linux 2.4 only supports 32 CPUS (include/linux/threads.h).
Wouldn't be useful to format it as %0.2d ?
Even in -aa, that supports 64 in 64-bits arches, it would be enough and
you get rid of the jump from _CPU9 to _CPU10.

--

werewolf.able.es                         \           It's better when it's free
Mandrake Linux release 9.2 (Cooker) for i586
Linux 2.4.21-rc2-jam1 (gcc 3.2.3 (Mandrake Linux 9.2 3.2.3-1mdk))
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in

More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

 
 
 

rename the ksoftirqd kernel thread.

Post by Martin Hick » Sat, 17 May 2003 14:50:11



> Standard Linux 2.4 only supports 32 CPUS (include/linux/threads.h).
> Wouldn't be useful to format it as %0.2d ?
> Even in -aa, that supports 64 in 64-bits arches, it would be enough and
> you get rid of the jump from _CPU9 to _CPU10.

I agree that currently there is only support for sizeof(long) CPUS.
Including this small fix will make the diff to run > 64 CPUS smaller
and will increase consistency between 2.4 and 2.5.

There are machines out there that are running 128 processors on 2.4

mh

--

  application_pgp-signature_part
< 1K Download
 
 
 

1. threads packages: kernel threads vs. user threads

Hello,

There seem to be other C or C++ language compatible thread packages
besides the standard POSIX 1003.1-2001 thread-related system calls.
For instance Qt implements some thread class code. I would imagine
that implementations which use kernel threads as opposed to user
threads would be based on the POSIX calls. Is this correct? What
other thread packages are available besides the POSIX ones? Just
speculating. Which packages are kernel thread based and which
ones are user thread based?

Thank you for your feedback,

Neil

2. Slackware Upgrade Woes

3. HELP: communication interface between kernel thread and user thread.

4. UNIX contracts available in DC, PA area of USA

5. kernel Thread VS user-level thread

6. print @ terminal not server

7. Quick Q on kernel threads and RT thread priorities

8. Installing MBUS-Modules in a SPARC Station 10

9. kernel thread VS user space thread in linux

10. Threads, threads, threads

11. Threads in linux versus threads in NT and threads in Solaris.

12. POSIX threads, thread-specific data: what about the "main" thread?