Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 13:56:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 13:56:31 -0400 Received: from hq.fsmlabs.com ([209.155.42.197]:47320 "EHLO hq.fsmlabs.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 13:55:39 -0400 From: Cort Dougan Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 11:58:35 -0600 To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Linus Torvalds , Rik van Riel , Andries Brouwer , William Lee Irwin III , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] lockless, scalable get_pid(), for_each_process() elimination, 2.5.35-BK Message-ID: <20020918115835.B656@host110.fsmlabs.com> References: <20020918113551.A654@host110.fsmlabs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from mingo@elte.hu on Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 08:02:56PM +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 746 Lines: 14 You're talking about a different problem there. Creating a thread within a realistic time-limit for a sensible number of threads is not a bad idea. Doing it for a huge number of threads may not be something that has to be done right away. Don't screw up the low to middle-end - that trend is getting frightening in Linux. } sorry, but creating a new thread within some realistic time limit, } independently of how all the other threads are layed out, is not something } i'd give up trying to solve. - 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/