[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200704110035.37563.ioe-lkml@rameria.de>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:35:35 +0200
From: Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@...eria.de>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Robin Holt <holt@....com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jack Steiner <steiner@...ricas.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: init's children list is long and slows reaping children.
On Tuesday 10 April 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Thus, rather than forcing authors to make their code more complex, we
> should find another solution.
What about sth. like the "pre-forking" concept? So just have a thread creator thread,
which checks the amount of unused threads and keeps them within certain limits.
So that anything which needs a thread now simply queues up the work and
specifies, that it wants a new thread, if possible.
One problem seems to be, that a thread is nothing else but a statement
on what other tasks I can wait before doing my current one (e.g. I don't want to
mlseep() twice on the same reset timeout).
But we usually use locking to order that.
Do I miss anything fundamental here?
Regards
Ingo Oeser
-
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