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/
