Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 19 Sep 1997 09:15:04 -0600 (MDT)
From:      Kenneth Merry <ken@plutotech.com>
To:        wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman)
Cc:        toor@dyson.iquest.net, current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: FYI: regarding our rfork(2)
Message-ID:  <199709191515.JAA04986@pluto.plutotech.com>
In-Reply-To: <199709191417.KAA28139@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> from Garrett Wollman at "Sep 19, 97 10:17:57 am"

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Garrett Wollman wrote...
> <<On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 20:19:13 -0500 (EST), "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> said:
> 
> > 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.  The 'full sharing' scheme is very
> > fast.
> 
> We ought to emulate SGI's sproc(2) system call as well, which does
> essentially the same thing.  It has the useful feature that it takes
> as an argument the address of a function to call, and does all the
> stack creation magic internally before calling same.  So, the inner
> loop of a program I wrote a long time ago on an SGI looks like this:


	I agree with Garrett...  I've done coding under IRIX, and sproc()
definitely is a handy system call.  The ability to specify a function
pointer for the main routine of the thread is especially nice.


Ken
-- 
Kenneth Merry
ken@plutotech.com



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709191515.JAA04986>