* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It would be even better to simply have the rule: > - child gets almost no points at startup > - but when a parent does a "waitpid()" call and blocks, it will spread > out its points to the childred (the "vfork()" blocking is another case > that is really the same). > > This is a very special kind of "priority inversion" logic: you give > higher priority to the things you wait for. Not because of holding any > locks, but simply because a blockign waitpid really is a damn big hint > that "ok, the child now works for the parent".
yeah. One problem i can see with the implementation of this though is that shells typically do nonspecific waits - for example bash does this on a simple 'ls' command: 21310 clone(child_stack=0, ...) = 21399 ... 21399 execve("/bin/ls", ... 21310 waitpid(-1, <unfinished ...> the PID is -1 so we dont actually know which task we are waiting for. We could use the first entry from the p->children list, but that looks too specific of a hack to me. It should catch most of the synchronous-helper-task cases though. Ingo - 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/