Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 23:38:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net>, Mikael Karpberg <karpen@ocean.campus.luth.se>, dyson@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FYI: regarding our rfork(2) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970918233609.1895G-100000@current1.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <199709190518.XAA16454@rocky.mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
All the processes running the threads need to be able to see all the stacks because the threads can migrate between the processes. Remember, we are trying to emulate threads running in a single address space/process, so we need to share ALL of the address space.. On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Nate Williams wrote: > > 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?Pine.BSF.3.95.970918233609.1895G-100000>