> This is one thing that has been unclear. The relationship of
It's written no less than most of them. ;-)
No, the performance idea there is a myth. You're talking about one test
and branch-not-taken for a word you're already loading into a register
right there anyway (if testing ->signal). It's maybe two cycles that were
most likely already idle in a load stall. The cache effects alone of
pushing parts of task_struct a word further away probably swamp it.
But when it comes out, it's flying at high velocity straight into your face!
Surely that's helpful.
Yes (and from the general Unix-lingo perspective too).
There are several other things that are implicitly required to be shared
when signal_struct is shared, too. But approximately, yes. Had I been in
charge of the world, task_struct would be 'struct thread' and signal_struct
would be 'struct process'. (Cue left-field flames from the peanut gallery
about what the words mean and Linux exceptionalism.)
Correct.
Everything I know I learned from reading the source. So I sympathize
with the sense of starting out lost without bearings, but I may be a
little hard-hearted about anyone wanting more than their eyeballs and
full-text searching to find their own bootstraps and pull (in my day,
it was up hill both ways, and all that).
Thanks,
Roland
--
