> > Anyway, do you see a hole or a serious performance
> > problem with my modified proposal (explicit mmap()
> > to create the necessary storage)?
> Same problem as with clone. I recommend the clone manpage; it says:
> If CLONE_VM is set, the calling process and the child
processes run in the same
> memory space. In particular, memory writes performed by the
calling process or
> by the child process are also visible in the other process.
Moreover, any mem
> ory mapping or unmapping performed with mmap(2) or munmap(2)
by the child or
> calling process also affects the other process.
> If CLONE_VM is not set, the child process runs in a separate
copy of the memory
> space of the calling process at the time of clone. Memory
writes or file map
> pings/unmappings performed by one of the processes do not
affect the other, as
> with fork(2).
> That is, if any memory OR MAPPING is shared, they all are.
Daniel, you didn't read my message. The per-thread memory
would be allocated *after* the clone() in pthread_create().
More specifically, pthread_create() would set it up so that
the function passed to clone for invocation was in fact a
wrapper that sets up the memory and thread data before
invoking the application function passed to pthread_create().
Now, if the idea is that the clone() system call is supposed
to cause the thread to be born, like Athena, full-grown from
the head of Zeus, with the analog to the thread register
already set up when it leaves the kernel, then I would be inclined
to concede that we need to change the ABI, the kernel, and
compilers, and I would ask just what we get for our trouble.
But if we are permitted the pthreads abstraction, there's a
lot that can be done transparently.