[lkml]   [2000]   [Aug]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: SCO: "thread creation is about a thousand times faster than on native Linux"
Linus Torvalds writes:
> Albert D. Cahalan <> wrote:

>> Ulrich Drepper has repeatedly flamed Linus for not adding the
>> features needed for low-overhead POSIX threads. Linus thinks
>> the POSIX thread interface is broken, so he won't add the ugly
>> bits needed to sanely reach POSIX compliance.
> Wrong. I'd be happy to add the bits, it's just that nobody
> has sent me a sane patch. People complain a lot, but I haven't
> seen anything constructive.

Nobody will send you a sane patch without you at least hinting
at what you might like to see. I'm sure many of us would be happy
to write the code, but not under the expectation that it will
be rejected. I wasted quite a bit of my time on the last patch
I sent you, and I'm not about to do that again.

The thread-process mess mostly hits me with procps, which can
not be fixed without kernel changes. I need the kernel to spit
out /proc entries in an order such that threads of a single
process appear next to each other; sorting is not OK to do.

BIG PROBLEM: if the lead thread of a process exits and the PID
gets reused, then the new process has unrelated threads????

Perhaps you could answer this post from March, which dealt with
PID wrap-around, kill(), and the ugly mess in /proc:
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.123 / U:2.148 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site