From: george anzinger <george@mvista.com>
To: Dave McCracken <dmccr@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] POSIX personality
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 14:13:01 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3CEAB85D.1532F5A2@mvista.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <64270000.1022012868@baldur.austin.ibm.com>
Dave McCracken wrote:
>
> As part of improving support for POSIX multithreading I've been putting
> together some patches to allow more things to be shared between tasks.
> Right now this is accomplished via flags to clone() with one flag per
> resource to be shared. This usually translates to a data structure pointed
> to out of task_struct, complete with reference count and lock.
>
> In a discussion today an alternate idea was proposed by Ben LaHaise. He
> suggested creating a POSIX personality, or execution domain. This would
> take some pressure off the clone flag space as well as allowing some
> optimizations in the code. It could also be used in situations where
> POSIX-compatible behavior entails more than just sharing extra resources
> between tasks.
>
> This would assume that the resources I'm sharing would only be useful for
> POSIX compatibility, but at this point it seems unlikely that anyone would
> want to share a subset of them. The resources I'm currently working on
> include credentials, signals, and timers, and there's a patch available
> for semaphore undo that could also be part of this mechanism.
>
> Since you've made it this far my question to you all is this: assuming
> that we do want improved POSIX compatibility does this sound like a
> reasonable way to add it?
>
What you are proposing seem a bit vague. I think that
CLONE_THREAD should group all the thread related stuff under
the one flag. IMHO POSIX compatibility should not be off in
the corner as a step child, but rather should be the norm.
The CLONE_THREAD flag would indicate to fork that it should
create a POSIX thread and set up the needed shared stuff. I
rather image this to be a structure that each task_struct
points to, possibly with a usage count (but that is a
detail). Each thread_struct would point to such a
structure, but processes that are not threaded would not be
sharing this area with other threads.
Is this close to what you had in mind?
-g
>
> ======================================================================
> Dave McCracken IBM Linux Base Kernel Team 1-512-838-3059
> dmccr@us.ibm.com T/L 678-3059
>
> -
> 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/
--
George Anzinger george@mvista.com
High-res-timers:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
Real time sched: http://sourceforge.net/projects/rtsched/
Preemption patch:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-05-21 21:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-05-21 20:27 Dave McCracken
2002-05-21 20:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-05-21 20:56 ` Dave McCracken
2002-05-23 14:10 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-05-23 17:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-05-25 0:02 ` jw schultz
2002-05-25 0:38 ` Alan Cox
2002-06-05 13:26 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-05-21 21:13 ` george anzinger [this message]
2002-05-21 21:21 ` Dave McCracken
[not found] <Pine.LNX.4.33.0205211349100.3073-100000@penguin.transmeta.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
[not found] ` <72190000.1022014608@baldur.austin.ibm.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
2002-05-21 21:35 ` Andi Kleen
2002-05-21 23:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-05-22 14:19 ` Dave McCracken
2002-05-28 17:26 ` Michael Sinz
2002-05-28 17:31 ` Dave McCracken
[not found] <187597808@toto.iv>
2002-05-21 23:55 ` Peter Chubb
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3CEAB85D.1532F5A2@mvista.com \
--to=george@mvista.com \
--cc=dmccr@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®