| To: | dan@debian.org (Daniel Jacobowitz) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: thread-ready ABIs |
| From: | Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> |
| Date: | Sun, 27 Jan 2002 20:24:36 +0000 (GMT) |
| Cc: | kevink@mips.com (Kevin D. Kissell), dom@algor.co.uk (Dominic Sweetman), ralf@oss.sgi.com (Ralf Baechle), drepper@redhat.com (Ulrich Drepper), uhler@mips.com (Mike Uhler), linux-mips@oss.sgi.com ("MIPS/Linux List (SGI)"), hjl@lucon.org (H . J . Lu) |
| In-reply-to: | <20020122121330.A16110@nevyn.them.org> from "Daniel Jacobowitz" at Jan 22, 2002 12:13:30 PM |
| Sender: | owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com |
> Which it is. Fork shares no memory regions; vfork/clone share all > memory regions. AFAIK there is no share-heap-but-not-stack option in > Linux. Thats a design decision. At the point you don't have identical mappings for both threads you need two sets of page tables and you take all the performance hits that go with changing current tables on a schedule. Its a lot cheaper to use a different %esp for each thread |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Help with OOPSes, anyone?, Pete Popov |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Newbie Question, Robert Rusek |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: thread-ready ABIs, Kevin D. Kissell |
| Next by Thread: | Re: thread-ready ABIs, Kevin D. Kissell |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |