Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 16 Aug 2002 01:58:24 +0200 (CEST) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch] user-vm-unlock-2.5.31-A2 |
| |
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > we could skip the 'clear' bit if this is the last release of the mm. > > Ahhah, but you miss the point. > > The fork()'ed child may clone on its own, and then exit. [...]
i was actually thinking about exactly this scenario when suggesting this. The fork()ed child might as well end up being a 'thread' that exits and thus needs to clear up after itself, right?
> [...] In which case we sure as heck don't want the original child to > modify the VM that it now shares with a subthread.
in what way is clone() utilized? if it's via any threading library then the fork()-ed process has its own thread state, which must be freed when exiting. So it's something like:
thread X fork() ===============> thread Y clone() ===========> thread Z
so we at this point have the original thread X, a new thread Y that was created via the fork(), and thread Z. Thread Y and Z share the same V. If now thread Y exits:
exit()
then we'd sure expect for Z's sake to free Y's thread state, right? Otherwise there would be a resource leak.
[ but it's getting late here and i might miss something :) ]
Ingo
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |