Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 23:18:19 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> Cc: karpen@ocean.campus.luth.se (Mikael Karpberg), dyson@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FYI: regarding our rfork(2) Message-ID: <199709190518.XAA16454@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199709190119.UAA00556@dyson.iquest.net> References: <199709190012.CAA11932@ocean.campus.luth.se> <199709190119.UAA00556@dyson.iquest.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> We are actually doing a pure memory sharing operation. We will be sharing > everything, plan 9 doesn't appear to share the stack. In order to support > pthreads, (and most thread schemes that I have seen), it is best to allow > full access to all of the thread stacks. Forgive me for being naive, but in all of my experiences with threads (not much, but lots lately with Java), it seems that sharing the stack is asking for nothing but trouble. If you need to share memory, allocate a 'global' shared memory bank that everyone can use, and use it. >From where I stand, sharing thread's stacks buys you nothing but problems worse than the malloc/free problems we're talking about. :( (I've got enough problems with the stupid race conditions with AWT in Java.) Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709190518.XAA16454>