From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 00:27:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 00:27:36 -0400 Received: from 64-42-29-14.atgi.net ([64.42.29.14]:9989 "HELO mail.clouddancer.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 00:27:22 -0400 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: WANTED: Re: VM lockup with 2.4.8 / 2.4.8pre8 In-Reply-To: <9lelsk$bri$1@ns1.clouddancer.com> In-Reply-To: <20010815193521.4DDE8783F5@mail.clouddancer.com> <9lelsk$bri$1@ns1.clouddancer.com> Reply-To: klink@clouddancer.com Message-Id: <20010816042734.D3E7C783F5@mail.clouddancer.com> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:27:34 -0700 (PDT) From: klink@clouddancer.com (Colonel) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In clouddancer.list.kernel, you wrote: > >> >> >I also propose to half badness of processes with pid < 1000 - those >> >processes are usually also important, because they are called during >> >boot-time and they usually handle important system affairs. >> >> >> The belief that boot started processes remain under a pid < 1000 is >> flawed. Simple example: the postfix mail server. >> > >agreed, but FWIW my postfix master daemon is pid 434 Ah, yes that reminds me that when you take down a service and then start it again, you lose that nice low pid. FWIW, my master is 23034 now. As D Ford stated, paying attention to pid value is not useful. -- Windows 2001: "I'm sorry Dave ... I'm afraid I can't do that."