Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:53:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:53:36 -0400 Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.130]:12703 "EHLO e32.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:53:36 -0400 Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 12:53:43 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Ingo Molnar cc: Cort Dougan , 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: <142420000.1032378823@flay> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.2 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 963 Lines: 21 >> Nobody's trying to screw the desktop users, we're being mind- bogglingly >> careful not to, in fact. If you have specific objections to a particular >> patch, raise them as technical arguments. Saying "we shouldn't do that >> because I'm not interested in it" is far less useful. > > i fully agree with your points, but it does not hold in this specific > case. Eliminating for_each_task loops (the ones completely unrelated to > the get_pid() issue) is an improvement even for desktop setups, which have > at most 1000 processes running. Right - which is exactly why I was saying we should stick to technical debates rather than whether some people were interested in a particular market segment or not ;-) M. - 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/