Re: [patch] exit_free(), 2.5.31-A0

From: Ingo Molnar (mingo@elte.hu)
Date: Tue Aug 13 2002 - 13:08:08 EST


On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> If you want to do this, you can do it at _clone_ time, by extending on
> the notion of "when I die, tell the parent using signal X" and making
> that notion be a more generic "when I die, do X", where "X" migh include
> updating some parent tables instead of sending a signal.
>
> But the magic "exit_write()" has to die.

think about it - we have the *very same* problem in kernel-space, and we
had it for years. People wanted to get rid of parent notification in
helper processes for ages. A thread cannot free its own stack. We now can
do it only with very special care and atomicity. The same thing cannot be
done by user-space, because it has no 'atomic change and sys_exit()'
operation at its hands. This capability is that the syscall provides -
perhaps it should be called 'exit_atomic()' instead?

(we got rid of all signal passing in the main fabric of pthreads - and
that's done rightfully so. Futexes are used for message passing and
eventing.)

        Ingo

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 15 2002 - 22:00:33 EST