[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: thread group comments

On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > No, it would be another "clone" option.
> You dont want it in kernel space.

Oh, I basically agree, _except_ that Al Viro has these ideas pending for
2.5.x that basically create a "process capability cache" that is a cache
of all the process ID's and capabilities (ie uid, gid, groups etc). Which
would be this copy-on-write thing.

And that may end up mixing well with a "CLONE_CAPABILITIES" flag.

Which is not to say that this will necessarily get done. But other changes
may make it an option. I was just saying that if done that way, it would
be a CLONE_xxxx flag instead of "we will use the thread leaders ID" thing.

> Its also very rare and not a performance case to push into glibc

Yes. For 2.4.x, I'd love to fix anything that can be used to show real
performance bugs. Something like "setuid() is slow when I run it threaded
is not a real issue". Something like "pthreads is faster under NT than
under Linux" _would_ be a real issue.


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:0.073 / U:3.992 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site