Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:22:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:22:17 -0500 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:55204 "HELO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:21:07 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:30:34 +0100 (CET) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: Ingo Molnar To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Linus Torvalds , , Alex Larsson , , Alexander Viro Subject: Re: [patch] procfs/procps threading performance speedup, 2.5.62 In-Reply-To: <20030220172857.GH9800@gtf.org> 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: 1009 Lines: 29 On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Al says that this cannot be done sanely, and is fraught with security > > problems. I'd vote for it if it were possible. Al? > > Having the kernel automatically manage creation/destruction of > directories is the sticking point, AFAIK. it already has to create/destroy the main PID directory, so i cannot see a big difference. > Why not use the "squid method"? Create directories 00..FF, and sort the > pids/tids into buckets that way. Then you are not creating and > destroying directories all the time. yuck ... 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/