From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 02:50:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 02:50:24 -0400 Received: from [202.54.26.202] ([202.54.26.202]:28319 "EHLO hindon.hss.co.in") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 02:50:10 -0400 X-Lotus-FromDomain: HSS From: alad@hss.hns.com To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <65256A24.00233ECF.00@sandesh.hss.hns.com> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:00:58 +0530 Subject: get_pid() : enahancement Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In 2.4 kernel we now have no limit on the number of tasks running on a system (no NR_TASKS anymore)... I was just wondering on the efficiency of get_pid() implemetation... Although 'next_safe' concept in this function seems useful but I think we now need a robust PID allocator.. We can have a discussion so that get_pid() can be made more effecient in future kernel. Amol