Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 14:01:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 14:01:38 -0400 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:22657 "HELO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 14:01:37 -0400 Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 20:14:02 +0200 (CEST) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: Ingo Molnar To: Cort Dougan Cc: Linus Torvalds , Rik van Riel , Andries Brouwer , William Lee Irwin III , Subject: Re: [patch] lockless, scalable get_pid(), for_each_process() elimination, 2.5.35-BK In-Reply-To: <20020918115835.B656@host110.fsmlabs.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1032 Lines: 25 On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Cort Dougan wrote: > 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 you must have missed the patch i posted yesterday. It can be done, it's fast, it does not hurt *any* benchmark and it actually has a worst-case cache-cold latency of 10 microseconds, even if 1 million threads are started up already. and besides it significantly speeds up some other areas as well, like session management in shells, group-signal delivery performance, tty handling and more. 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/