Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 11:11:50 +0000 From: Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net> To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD pthreads Message-ID: <20010304111150.A10676@cx420564-b.tucson1.az.home.com> In-Reply-To: <20010304110851.A10552@cx420564-b.tucson1.az.home.com>; from fracture@allusion.net on Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 11:08:51AM %2B0000 References: <20010304101847.A8709@cx420564-b.tucson1.az.home.com> <20010304095502.N8663@fw.wintelcom.net> <20010304110851.A10552@cx420564-b.tucson1.az.home.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 11:08:51AM +0000, Jordan DeLong wrote: > On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 09:55:03AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > * Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net> [010304 09:27] wrote: > > > Hey; I've got a question about the pthread implementation on freebsd. I was > > > looking it over and noticed that the pthread library is green; which is > > > disadvantagous on SMP machines. I found a port of the linux pthreads, but it > > > uses rfork() to create the new threads... > > > > > > Anyway; I was curious if a clone() call is in the works for freebsd 5.0? And > > > if not, is there much interest in getting one at some point, or are there other > > > factors that'd make implemention of one right now more difficult than it would > > > seem? > > > > What's the difference between clone() and rfork()? Last I checked they > > were pretty much the same. > > clone() wont count against the per uid process limit, right? > > > or maybe it will...... > actually I just realized it'd be incredibly stupid for clone not to count against the per uid process limit hehe. anyway; I guess you're right; rfork() does the trick. > > > > -- > > -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010304111150.A10676>