trparkyPlease don't tell me you like Windows XP. :fear:

R-T-BMaybe I just failed to see the sarcasm from a guy with an Intel CPU. :p

Or I woke up grumpy because my internet is only now back after comcast had me netless for almost a week. Take your pick. ;)



Yes. It's not even broken in 7.

FordGT90ConceptOnly time there's mass process termination in a server environment is before shutting down.

OneMoaranybody running a outdated version of windows: deserves to have there pc soaked in gasoline lit on fire and then thrown off a tall building

rtwjunkieI'm gonna say what everyone else who see that and is thinking but is afraid to say:
WTF is WRONG with you?

trparkyI wrote a quick and dirty console program in .NET that spawns 1000 child processes that simply sleeps and does nothing (an infinite loop) and then proceeds to kill said child processes. Getting Windows to respond to just about anything while it was killing the child processes was difficult at best. This is a fully updated version of Windows 10, Build 15063.483. So yeah, this seems like an issue at the Windows kernel level. :ohwell:

trparkyI wrote a quick and dirty console program in .NET that spawns 1000 child processes that simply sleeps and does nothing (an infinite loop) and then proceeds to kill said child processes. Getting Windows to respond to just about anything while it was killing the child processes was difficult at best. This is a fully updated version of Windows 10, Build 15063.483. So yeah, this seems like an issue at the Windows kernel level. :ohwell:

trparkyI don't have a Windows Server laying around. If you have one I can give you the source code for the console app I wrote.

using System;
using System.Threading;
namespace LotsOThreads
{
class Program
{
private static Thread[] _Threads = new Thread[1000];
private static volatile bool _Stop = false;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine("Start threads...");
for (int i = 0; i < _Threads.Length; i++)
{
_Threads = new Thread(Worker);
_Threads.Start();
}
Console.WriteLine("Waiting a second...");
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Console.WriteLine("Killing threads...");
//for (int i = 0; i < _Threads.Length; i++) // painful
// _Threads.Abort();
_Stop = true; // peaceful
Console.WriteLine("Done.");
}
private static void Worker()
{
while (!_Stop)
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
}

As I said, whomever wrote gomacc.exe is an idiot.

Like one big file is better than lots of small files, one big process with lots of threads is better than lots of processes with one thread. The former in both cases creates a lot of hidden overhead.


To recap: left is bad (spam processes), right is good (spam threads)...

FordGT90ConceptThreads can't be killed though, only aborted. Aborted threads are still gracefully unwound by the parent process.

OneMoarhas nothing todo with memory anyway the problem is that termination is serial not parallel
has nothing todo with memory-management or disk i/o
from the original post:

Well, what do you know. Process creation is CPU bound, as it should be. Process shutdown, however, is CPU bound at the beginning and the end, but there is a long period in the middle (about a second) where it is serialized – using just one of the eight hyperthreads on the system, as 1,000 processes fight over a single lock inside of NtGdiCloseProcess. This is a serious problem. This period represents a time when programs will hang and mouse movements will hitch – and sometimes this serialized period is several seconds longer.

FordGT90Conceptout of curiousity, I'm going to try killing a single processes that uses over 10 GiB of memory...