[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070406172720.GA1147@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 19:27:20 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Robin Holt <holt@....com>, Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: init's children list is long and slows reaping children.
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> I'd almost prefer to just not add kernel threads to any parent process
> list *at*all*.
i think part of the problem is the legacy that the list is artificially
unified: tasks that 'will possibly exit' are on the same list as tasks
that 'have already exited'. If we split it up into its natural data
structure, having a list of tasks that are there and do not intend to
exit, plus a separate list of tasks that are exiting and want to notify
their parent, all this scanning goes away. I can see no real reason for
this other than legacy - i dont think the semantics of the wait4() API
force us to scan all those threads.
putting the freshly reaped tasks at the 'head' of the list is just a
fancy (and incomplete) way of splitting the list up into two lists, and
i'd advocate a clean split. Just like have have split the ptrace_list
away from the main list too.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists