On 22 Feb 2003, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> > architecture-wise there is a difference, and i'd be
> > the last one arguing against a tree-based approach to
> > thread groups. It's much easier to find threads belonging
> > to a single 'process' via /proc this way - although no
> > functionality in procps has or requires such a feature currently.
>
> Nope, the /proc/123/threads/246/stat approach is required. Without this,
> procps is forced to read _all_ tasks to group threads together. This is
> slow, prone to race conditions, more vulnerable to kernel bugs, and a
> memory hog.
actually, what you mention does not happen in practice. We coded it up and
it works, and with tons of threads around it performs a few orders of
magnitudes faster than any other stuff available so far. So the question
here is 'only' interface/approach cleanliness, not actual performance
difference. Sure, we could shave off another millisec or two, but the
performance problems are off the radar already.
> Note that the recent /proc/*/wchan addition was botched.
(fyi, i have nothing to do with that change, so spare your insults for
someone else.)
> (next time, discuss such changes with an experienced procps developer
> first)
(given that this whole area was left alone in a state like this for years
i'm not quite sure how you can still sit so high on your horse.)
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 23 2003 - 22:00:39 EST