Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:58:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:58:51 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:60937 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:58:50 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:06:03 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Ingo Molnar cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alex Larsson , Subject: Re: [patch] procfs/procps threading performance speedup, 2.5.62 In-Reply-To: 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: 1083 Lines: 29 On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > the main problem with threads in /proc is that there's a big slowdown when > using lots of threads. Well, part of the problem (I think) is that you added all the threads to the same main directory. Putting a "." in front of the name doesn't fix the /proc level directory scalability issues, it only means that you can avoid some of the user- level scalability ones. So to offset that bad design, you then add other cruft, like the lookup cursor and the "." marker. Which is not a bad idea in itself, but I claim that if you'd made the directory structure saner you wouldn't have needed it in the first place. It would just be _so_ much nicer if the threads would show up as subdirectories ie /proc///xxx. More scalable, more readable, and just generally more sane. Linus - 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/