From: jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] threads in Plan 9
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:06:18 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010427200620.8B79519A0C@mail.cse.psu.edu> (raw)
On Fri Apr 27 15:24:32 EDT 2001, schwartz@bio.cse.psu.edu wrote:
> | For writing some applications, limbo is quite pleasant. I've written
> | concurrent ("multithreaded") programs in limbo and felt comfortable
> | doing so, whereas using the Unix LWP (light-weight process) libraries
> | (or POSIX threads) directly has always seemed hazardous.
>
> On a slightly different topic, it has also seemed hazardous to me in
> Plan 9. One particular thing, for example, is that there's no way to
> tell the system that a cohort of processes should be treated as such.
> I used to have great fun with mothra when one process would crash, and
> leave the rest deadlocked or otherwise boggled. On those occasions,
> I felt like a multi-threaded application should have a kernel-enforced
> way to fail as a unit, as if there was a suicide_pact() system call,
> or something like the "reboot" device, so that of one process dies
> unexpectedly, the others do too.
>
> | libthread attempts to capture some of the benefits of limbo (notably
> | communication) in C, but I'd rather have one kind of process (not
> | processes and threads) and it feels a little like LWP libraries to me,
> | plus you don't get the concise limbo communication syntax and
> | automatic memory (de)allocation.
>
> Agreed.
There is/was a proposal on the table about a year ago for a neat way
to tidy up all this stuff. Maybe we'll get round to it once we've finished
editing all the source to get the declaration of 'main' right.
next reply other threads:[~2001-04-27 20:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-04-27 20:06 jmk [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-04-28 16:00 Richard Miller
2001-04-27 21:39 forsyth
2001-04-30 9:24 ` Douglas A. Gwyn
2001-04-27 19:09 [9fans] Awk or Limbo ? geoff.9fans
2001-04-27 19:23 ` [9fans] threads in Plan 9 Scott Schwartz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20010427200620.8B79519A0C@mail.cse.psu.edu \
--to=jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com \
--cc=9fans@cse.psu.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).