Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:47:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:47:55 -0400 Received: from pixpat.austin.ibm.com ([192.35.232.241]:14471 "EHLO baldur.austin.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:47:54 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 13:51:42 -0500 From: Dave McCracken To: Ingo Molnar cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] O(1) sys_exit(), threading, scalable-exit-2.5.31-A6 Message-ID: <65670000.1029783102@baldur.austin.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (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: 1183 Lines: 28 --On Monday, August 19, 2002 08:36:24 PM +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > well, this means that we'd still have to iterate through both lists in > wait4(), and we'd have to maintain the ptrace list(s) in all the relevant > codepaths - does this buy us anything relative to -B4? The lists would constitute the tasks that wait4() should consider, at least. And maintaining the list wouldn't be any more work than the current reparenting. I do admit that I don't see a significant win, codewise, other than aesthetics. In looking at the code I was wondering something. What happens to the real parent of a ptraced task when it calls wait4()? If that's its only child, won't it return ECHILD? Dave McCracken ====================================================================== Dave McCracken IBM Linux Base Kernel Team 1-512-838-3059 dmccr@us.ibm.com T/L 678-3059 - 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/