On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 01:10:31AM +0200, J . A . Magallon wrote:
>
> On 20010621 Stephen Satchell wrote:
> >
> >By the way, I'm surprised no one has mentioned that a synonym for "thread"
> >is "lightweight process".
> >
>
> In linux. Perhaps this the fault.
> In IRIX, you have sprocs and threa
On 20010621 Stephen Satchell wrote:
>
>By the way, I'm surprised no one has mentioned that a synonym for "thread"
>is "lightweight process".
>
In linux. Perhaps this the fault.
In IRIX, you have sprocs and threads. sprocs have independent pids and you
can control what you share (mappings, fd ta
I thought one only refers to LWPs when talking about kernel level threads
not user-space ones?
Ognen
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Stephen Satchell wrote:
> By the way, I'm surprised no one has mentioned that a synonym for "thread"
> is "lightweight process".
>
> Satch
--
Ognen Duzlevski
Plant Biotech
At 08:48 PM 6/20/01 +0200, Martin Devera wrote:
>BTW is not possible to implement threads as subset of process ?
>Like thread list pointed to from task_struct. It'd contain
>thread_structs plus another scheduler's data.
>The thread could be much smaller than process.
>
>Probably there is another p
> Threads are processes that share more
BTW is not possible to implement threads as subset of process ?
Like thread list pointed to from task_struct. It'd contain
thread_structs plus another scheduler's data.
The thread could be much smaller than process.
Prob
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, bert hubert wrote:
> Rounding up, it may be worth repeating what I think Alan said some months
> ago:
>
> Threads are processes that share more
... and for absolute majority of programmers additional shared objects mean
additional fsckup
Rounding up, it may be worth repeating what I think Alan said some months
ago:
Threads are processes that share more
And if we just keep bearing that out to everybody a lot of the myths will go
away. I would suggest that the pthreads manpages get this attitude.
Regards
7 matches
Mail list logo
