From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Nigel Roles" To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: RE: [9fans] Threads: Sewing badges of honor onto a Kernel Message-ID: <001301c3fe00$791ee9b0$2bdcfea9@blue> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <20040228110851.GB16357@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 13:40:48 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 01fb83e0-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu wrote: > On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 09:44:24AM -0000, Nigel Roles wrote: > >> The performance argument may well still be regarded by Linus as >> stronger, but there are other differences. One is that the stack >> used by the clone, being allocated on the heap, is fixed in size, >> and unprotected from overflow. > > clone() uses whatever you pass to it; man 2 mmap for further > inspiration... To paraphrase Captain Mainwaring, "I wondered if you'd spot that". Whilst writing the email, it occurred to me that you could probably pull stunts with mmap/mremap and catching signals, and get what is wanted. We are now composing several system calls in some moderately clever ways to get a behaviour which, whilst not equivalent to rfork() is as flexible. It's not exactly obvious though is it? I think I would expect to see a helper function. Nice to see you on the list again Al.