Hello.

..despite that particular timeout(1), i have not looked..

David Laight wrote in
 <[email protected]>:
 |From: Denys Vlasenko
 |> Sent: 01 March 2022 16:40
 |> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:31 PM Rob Landley <[email protected]> wrote:
 |>> On 2/14/22 10:09 AM, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
 ...
 |> My memory is hazy on this, but IIRC kernel also actually has some
 |> defensive code to not immediately reuse pids which just died.
 |
 |The Linux krnel only has protection for code inside the kernel.
 |Basically there is a ref-counted structure that you need to send the
 |signal - not the pid itself.
 |I can't quite remember whether the pid itself can be reused even before
 |that structure is freed.
 |
 |NetBSD does guarantee not to reuse a pid for a reasonable number
 |of forks after a process exits.

...which might be fruitless with 16-bit pids, define "reasonable".
Matt Dillon of DragonFly BSD (crond etc.) made, after implementing
some DBSD kernel optimizations (iirc), tests with statically
linked programs and... quoting myself

  i remember Matthew Dillon's post on DragonFly BSD users@[1], where
  he claims 450000 execs per second for a statically linked binary,
  and about 45000 execs per second for a dynamic one, with DragonFly
  5.6 on a threadripper.

    [1] https://marc.info/?l=dragonfly-users&m=155846667020624&w=2

(Hope that is still valid.)
It think it is a problem with shells, i once stumbled over this
with a particular (now completely rewritten) of the test suite of
the mailer i maintain:

  My guess would have been that if i kill(1) a job specification,
  then the sh(1)ell would refuse to use its builtin kill(1) to kill
  a PID that was saved away from ${!}, and the process in question
  has already terminated.  Of course using job specifications is
  impossible here, let alone portably (though that i have not even
  tried, because set -m results in a lot of unwanted noise).

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Reply via email to