Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> writes:
> I think I have a really good idea.
>
> Forget about task ref for a moment. I thinks we can greatly
> simplify the pids management. We don't PIDTYPE_MAX hash tables,
> we need only one.
I like it. If we run top we wind of with the same number of dynamic
allocations, with task_refs (because /proc uses them). The amount of
memory utilized is lower. Probes for unused sessions and process
groups are a little more expensive but not noticeably so.
Unless we can implement do_each_task_pid/while_each_task_pid in terms
of for_each_task_pid. I am nervous about making the conversion.
During fork is a very nice time to allocate these as it allows the
rest of the code to assume they are always available.
I think we had something similar several years ago, that's where
the name struct pid came from. But it used a separate head for each
type of pid, and it used a separate structure for what we now embed
in struct task.
It completely breaks my patch for multiple pid spaces. Oh well it
isn't merged anyway. :)
> And noe we can inplement pid_ref almost for free, just add ->count
> to 'struct pid_head'.
>
> What do you think?
I will take a good hard look at it once I send off my patchs to shore
up task_refs in the -mm tree.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
