From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:09:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:09:47 -0400 Received: from fluent1.pyramid.net ([206.100.220.212]:14641 "EHLO fluent1.pyramid.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:09:40 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010620150729.00b60710@mail.fluent-access.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:08:52 -0700 To: Martin Devera , bert hubert From: Stephen Satchell Subject: Re: Threads are processes that share more Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <20010620175937.A8159@home.ds9a.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org At 08:48 PM 6/20/01 +0200, Martin Devera wrote: >BTW is not possible to implement threads as subset of process ? >Like thread list pointed to from task_struct. It'd contain >thread_structs plus another scheduler's data. >The thread could be much smaller than process. > >Probably there is another problem I don't see, I'm just >currious whether can it work like this .. Threads would then run, as a group, at the priority of the process, and then by priority within the process thread group. To be truely useful, threads need to be able to have their run priority divorced from the priority of the spawning process. By the way, I'm surprised no one has mentioned that a synonym for "thread" is "lightweight process". Satch