Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:33:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:33:50 -0400 Received: from mx1.elte.hu ([157.181.1.137]:39043 "HELO mx1.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:33:49 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 19:38:06 +0200 (CEST) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: Ingo Molnar To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Jamie Lokier , Subject: Re: CLONE_DETACHED and exit notification (was user-vm-unlock-2.5.31-A2) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1186 Lines: 31 On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > having looked at threading libraries i can tell you that any library > > writer who cares about performance would use a futex for exit > > notification. > > Oh, good. If it turns out that even pthreads wants the futex, [...] yes, pthreads used a futex for this ever since. This is what i was arguing for all along, and this is why pthreads does not want any SIGCHLD internally, ever. This is why i sent the patch that ended up being CLONE_DETACHED. No signal notification is needed, everything can be done via futexes. And all the 'unsafe exit' arguments are bogus... merging futex release into exit() removes one more extra syscall, and removes the need for having a thread-state-usage spinlock (of sorts). So from the pthreads point of view the interface couldnt be nicer. > [...] let's just do it that way. Pls send in a patch once you have > something tested ready, ok? okay. 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/