[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20091030185620.b8e0fc8b.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:56:20 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ptrace: cleanup ptrace_init_task()->ptrace_link() path
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:55:07 +0100 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 10/30, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:56:56 +0100
> > Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > ptrace
> >
> > Speaking of which, I'm still sitting on
> > do_wait-optimization-do-not-place-sub-threads-on-task_struct-children-list.patch.
>
> (this patch has nothing to do with ptrace)
>
> > Should I drop it?
>
> Why? I think this is good optimization and imho cleanup.
>
> There is no point to have sub-thread in ->children list and this
> slows down do_wait() if a child has a lot of threads, it has to
> iterate over all sub-threads just to filter them out.
>
On 17 Sep you said:
: Yes, risky... God knows who can do list_for_each(->children) and expect to
: find the sub-threads. But this is obviously good optimization/simplification.
:
: It is just ugly to place sub-threads on ->children list, this buys nothing
: but slown downs do_wait(). (this was needed, afaics, to handle ptraced but
: not re-parented threads a long ago).
so that's why I didn't merge it into 2.6.32. Is the patch still
considered "risky"?
--
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