Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:17:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:16:20 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:1803 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:15:33 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:22:42 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Ingo Molnar cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alex Larsson , , Alexander Viro 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: 909 Lines: 24 On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Al says that this cannot be done sanely, and is fraught with security > problems. I'd vote for it if it were possible. Al? I seriously doubt it. It's all exactly the same as the _current_ /proc/ stuff, it just shows up in a different place. > but, if you worry about the scalability of large /proc directories - it's > not bad at all. I worry about the _sanity_ of it, and it basically makes no sense to iterate over every single thread, when you should always be able to just iterate over processes (and then within the process - only when you want to - iterate over the threads of _that_ process). 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/