Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:01:37 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kernel thread as real threads.. Message-ID: <20060124020137.GW25397@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0601232038010.17167-100000@sea.ntplx.net> References: <20060124012236.GU25397@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <Pine.GSO.4.43.0601232038010.17167-100000@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 2006-Jan-23 20:38:46 -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote: >On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Peter Jeremy wrote: > >> On Mon, 2006-Jan-23 19:59:02 -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote: >> >POSIX specifies that only 1 thread (the forking thread) is present >> >after a fork. >> >> Just to clarify, I presume you are talking about only one thread >> existing in the child process and the parent's threads still exist as >> they did before the fork(). If fork() arbitrarily killed all the >> threads in the parent process, that would be a real PITA. > >Correct, I assumed we were talking about the child process. My understanding of Robert's issue was the case where a parent has multiple threads, one thread does a fork() whilst the remaining threads are not blocked. If the remaining threads are executing whilst fork() is copying the process address space, then the child will could inherit a confused (partially indeterminate) copy of the parent's address space, depending on what the other threads have been doing. -- Peter Jeremy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060124020137.GW25397>