On 04/06, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I'd almost prefer to just not add kernel threads to any parent
> > > process list *at*all*.
> >
> > Yes sure, I didn't argue with that. However, "->exit_state = -1" does
> > matter, we can't detach process unless we make it auto-reap.
>
> > Off course, we also need to add preparent_to_init() to kthread() and
> > (say) stopmachine(). Or we can create kernel_thread_detached() and
> > modify callers to use it.
>
> this isnt a kernel-thread special case. The right solution IMO is to
> first migrate wait4()'s ->children use over to a new p->exiting_children
> list and then to gradually get rid of all remaining uses of p->children.
> (the first patch of which i sent a few minutes ago)
>
> that way wait4() will be sped up, and quite dramatically i believe. No
> need to deal with kthreads here at all - those just wont ever show up in
> the ->exiting_children list. Am i missing something?
Probably it is I who missed something :)
But why can't we do both changes? I think it is just ugly to use init to
reap the kernel thread. Ok, wait4() can find zombie quickly if we do the
->children split. But /sbin/init could be swapped out, we still need to
deliver SIGCHLD, etc.
And I personally agree with Linus, it is nice to hide the kernel threads
from /sbin/init (or whatever) completely.
No?
Oleg.
-
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]
