On Sun, 27 Feb 2000, Ricky Beam wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Feb 2000, Mike A. Harris wrote:
>>Ok, so I see your point, and agree that you do need to monitor
>>the system with something. Doing so in-kernel is likely a nice
>>easy way for you to do so, and that is fine. I don't think it is
>>ok to put it in the mainstream kernel though, as it just ads
>>more bloat. It would be useful for specific systems however.
>
>"bloat"? It's two lines of code in the process exit path. That adds, what,
>four cpu cylces to process termination? That's not bloat. The price of
>tracking process zombies in the kernel is far, far less than tracking it
>in user land.
>
>I see no reason why this shouldn't be added as a configurable feature. If
>you don't want it or need it, then don't compile it in.
I've added it to my system and tested it as well. Indeed you are
correct, it does not unnecessarily bloat the kernel at all. It
does help track stuff down easier in userland also, and to nab
bad commercial apps (and otherwise).
Consider this my vote for the patch being included.
-- Mike A. Harris Linux advocate Computer Consultant GNU advocate Capslock Consulting Open Source advocateSuspicious Anagram #4: Word: PRESIDENT CLINTON OF THE USA Anagram: TO COPULATE HE FINDS INTERNS
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 29 2000 - 21:00:20 EST