Message-ID: <428DF95E.2070703@free.fr>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 16:51:10 +0200
From: Olivier Croquette <ocroquette@free.fr>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Macintosh/20050317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
CC: Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
Subject: Re: Thread and process dentifiers (CPU affinity, kill)
References: <428CD458.6010203@free.fr> <20050519182302.GE23621@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <428CED0C.9020607@nortel.com> <20050520125511.GC23488@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
In-Reply-To: <20050520125511.GC23488@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1127
Lines: 31

Lennart Sorensen wrote:

 > I believe Linux currently implements threads as seperate processes (at
 > least top and ps sees them that way).

> Have you tried NPTL (native posix threading library) which is supposed
> to become the threading standard on linux in the future (if it works
> out)?

Lennart,

 From the beginning we are talking about the present GNU/Linux systems, 
which do already use NTPL in standard. NPTL is no future standard, it is 
present standard.

This means basicly that 50% of your assertions (like the above) are 
wrong, and your conclusions "suffer" from that :)

The point is that if you make a ps on a decent Linux based system, you 
will *NOT* see one process for each thread. Nor they do appear in /proc.

This means there are *NOT* userland processes.

And therefore, you shall *NOT* be able to reference them as such where a 
process ID is required.

-
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/