On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 03:55 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/06, Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 02:06 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > With this patch a thread group is killed atomically under ->siglock.
> > > This is faster because we can use sigaddset() instead of force_sig_info()
> > > and this is used in further patches.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>
> >
> > Won't this cause huge latencies when a process with lots of threads is
> > killed?
>
> Yes, irqs are disabled. But this is not worse than 'kill -9 pid', note
> that __group_complete_signal() or zap_other_threads() do the same.
Those have been problematic in the past. I am just wondering if this
will be a latency regression, or if changes elsewhere in your patch
negate the effect.
I'm just concerned because it was a lot of work over ~2 years to get 2.6
to perform decently in this area, and we have regressed since 2.6.14 (VM
issue).
Lee
-
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]
