Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 12:53:54 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_fork.c Message-ID: <XFMail.20020503125354.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0205030907170.82741-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 03-May-2002 Julian Elischer wrote: > > > On Fri, 3 May 2002, John Baldwin wrote: > >> >> Hmm, one thing I'm assuming in some places is that exec() will _require_ a >> non-KSE process. I.e., if you want to do an exec() from a KSE process, >> first >> fork() a new process w/o threads and then let it do the exec(). At least, >> this is what we sort of agreed to back when you, Peter, and I met and talked >> about the scheduler several months ago. >> > > The threaded library is in fact the important one.. > If I have a threaded bind library or X11-library, > and I want to fork. Do I need to know if the bind or X11 is > threaded? I shouldn't have to.. I should just be able to fork.. > > I am not coding for this now but I'd LIKE to be able to code this option > in the future and so I am considering the ramifications now.. vfork() at least should use a flag that only fork's the current thread and not all of the threads. I think only fork'ing one thread is quite doable. We could also export the flag for fork() that allows just forking one thread to userland. For exec() I suppose to avoid POLA we will just have to terminate all the threads early on in the function in the kernel itself. As long as we do that I think we will still be ok. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20020503125354.jhb>