From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 13:40:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 13:40:08 -0400 Received: from bitmover.com ([192.132.92.2]:28595 "EHLO bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 13:40:07 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:44:11 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] O(1) sys_exit(), threading, scalable-exit-2.5.31-A6 Message-ID: <20020819104411.A29059@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from torvalds@transmeta.com on Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 10:42:06AM -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 10:42:06AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > We sh ould just have made a separate "tsk->tracer" pointer, instead of > continuing with the perverted "my parent is my tracer" logic. We shouldn't > really re-write the parent/child relationship just because we're being > traced. I've always wondered if the process model shouldn't be virtualized much like files are virtual. One application of this could be for ptraced processes, they have a different ops vector than non-traced processes. Any chance that could work? -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm