| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
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