Re: [RFC, PATCH 1/3] introduce SYS_CLONE_MASK

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


OK.  I just got the OK from management.  The system we were booting was
for research only.  We had NR_CPUS=num_online_cpus()=4096 which were
non-hyperthreaded.  With no attached I/O and the tweak I originally
posted plus one change Jack has already gotten accepted, the machine
booted in approx 12 minutes.


On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 10:20:27AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Roland McGrath <[email protected]> writes:
> > I concur with Eric's assessment.  Adding new magic bits to the generic
> > clone path seems like a poor way to cope with kernel threads.  I think
> > it's better if kernel thread setup gets less like normal user process
> > setup.  I also agree with Eric that PPID of 0 is a very natural way for
> > kernel threads to be displayed.  We need to know more about the nature
> > of the compatibility issue in procps to judge whether there is good
> > reason to avoid changing it.
> I just investigated the procps issue.  Using init_task as the parent
> nothing sticks out as being wrong in /proc.
> Further when I modified pstree to accept 0 as it's starting pid (from
> which all else would be rooted).  All of the kernel threads showed up.
> So if anything I it is a feature that kernel threads don't show up
> by default in pstree (when PPID == 0).  It isn't a subtle kernel bug.
> 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
Please read the FAQ at

[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]
  Powered by Linux