get_pid() : enahancement

mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed

* get_pid() : enahancement
@ 2001-04-04  6:30 alad
  2001-04-04 11:05 ` Alan Cox
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: alad @ 2001-04-04  6:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

* Re: get_pid() : enahancement
  2001-04-04  6:30 get_pid() : enahancement alad
@ 2001-04-04 11:05 ` Alan Cox
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Alan Cox @ 2001-04-04 11:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: alad; +Cc: linux-kernel

> 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..

get_pid() isnt showing up on kernel profile runs I've seen, and that doesn't
actually suprise me. Its not a normal hot path


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2001-04-04 11:03 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-04-04  6:30 get_pid() : enahancement alad
2001-04-04 11:05 ` Alan Cox

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®