Subject: Re: proposal for Linux exit_group emulation
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Christos Zoulas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/02/2005 23:34:01
In article <20051202160650.GB6190@spathi.chuq.com>,
Chuck Silvers <email@example.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 11:09:43PM +0000, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 11:49:24PM +0100, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
>> > On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
>> > >Please find attached a proposal for emulating Linux exit_group(). I'm not
>> > >sur it follows The Right Way.
>> > There's probably a stupid idea in this question, but still:
>> > Did you talk to some Linux people about this, or
>> > look at Linux sources to see how/what they do?
>> They use their own threading system :-)
>> The problem is mapping Linux thread semantics on NetBSD kernel objects:
>> threads or processes. We chose to use processes with shared memory.
>is this really better than using one process with multiple LWPs?
>what problems would be caused by switching to that model?
Does our scheduler work properly with a single process with multiple LWP's?