[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: SCO: "thread creation is about a thousand times faster than on
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Erik McKee wrote:

> Hello!
> This is one of my first posts here, so try to be gentle, please ;)
> Seems like if a thread which shares a VM with all the other threads of the
> same family does an execve, the following would be likely to occurr, using
> the standard definition of execve. The vm would be overwriteen with the
> new image, but this would have to wwipe out all the other threads in the
> process, 'cuz otherwise everything they refer to has just been overwritten
> by the results of the execve. However, if the execve'ing thread was
> allowed to spawn off intop a new address space before the execve, it would
> then become a new process, and leave the parent procvess with one less
> thread to worry about.

I think that's close to Linus' idea.
But it reminds me more a fork()+exec() rather than a simple exec().

OK. I'm clueless C programmer. I write:

program A:
pid = getpid(); /* imagine is 300 */
exec("program B");

program B:
pid = getpid(); /* I'm expecting 300 */

Then I modify A:

program A2:
pid = getpid(); /* 400 */
if (!fork()) {
exec("program B);

program B:
pid = getpid(); /* I'm expecting != 400 */

This is ok because that's what I asked for.
Suppose I make a MT version of A. It would behave just like A2.
The thread who's performing the exec() becomes a different process
and program B sees a different pid.

It's like saying: an exec() in a MT process behaves like a fork()+exec()
sequence in a normal process.

I'm not really against it... it's just a little weird.
Killing all threads, and doing a "real" exec(), leads to the expected
semantic. Of course, since you should expect the "defined" semantic,
that matter is about choosing the definition. B-)

BTW, I don't think it needs to be a kernel matter. exec() in a MT
program can be defined to kill all threads in userland before doing
the exec().

> Or am I being very stupid and overlooking something critical here?

Do you consider the above problem "critical"? B-)

> Have a nice day ;)
> Erik McKee
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to
> Please read the FAQ at

____/ ____/ /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
_____/ _____/ _/

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.092 / U:7.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site