On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Chris Snook wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > Another thing we could do is to just make sure that kernel threads simply
> > don't end up as children of init. That whole thing is silly, they're really
> > not children of the user-space init anyway. Comments?
>
> Does anyone remember why we started doing this in the first place? I'm sure
> there are some tools that expect a process tree, rather than a forest, and
> making it a forest could make them unhappy.
I'm not sure anybody would really be unhappy with pptr pointing to some
magic and special task that has pid 0 (which makes it clear to everybody
that the parent is something special), and that has SIGCHLD set to SIG_IGN
(which should make the exit case not even go through the zombie phase).
I can't even imagine *how* you'd make a tool unhappy with that, since even
tools like "ps" (and even more "pstree" won't read all the process states
atomically, so they invariably will see parent pointers that don't even
exist any more, because by the time they get to the parent, it has exited
already.
> The support angel on my shoulder says we should just put all the kernel
> threads under a kthread subtree to shorten init's child list and minimize
> impact.
A number are already there, of course, since they use the kthread
infrastructure to get there.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
