Messages in this thread |  | | From | "Albert D. Cahalan" <> | Subject | Re: SCO: "thread creation is about a thousand times faster than on native Linux" | Date | Thu, 24 Aug 2000 00:02:13 -0400 (EDT) |
| |
Linus Torvalds writes: > Albert D. Cahalan <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> 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: http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0003.3/1289.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |