Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > so ... is anyone pursuing this? This would allow us to make >> > sys_wait4() faster and more scalable: no tasklist_lock bouncing for >> > example. >> >> which part? > > all of it :) Everything you mentioned makes sense quite a bit. The > thread signal handling of do_wait was added in a pretty arbitrary > fashion so i doubt there are strong requirements in that area. Apps > might have grown to get used to it meanwhile though, so we've got to do > it carefully.
I'm looking at. If only because there is a reasonable chance doing this will fix the races with a threaded init. However I just found something nasty. The wait __WNOTHREAD flag. And my quick search seems to find at least one user space applications that uses it, and it is widely documented so I suspect there are others :( I played with moving the lists into signal_struct, and short of architecture specific users of task->children all I had to touch were: include/linux/init_task.h | 2 +- include/linux/sched.h | 5 +- kernel/exit.c | 159 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------------ kernel/fork.c | 2 +- mm/oom_kill.c | 4 +- So it should be relatively easy to change this child lists around... 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/
