Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!agate!ucbvax!ucsd!ncr-sd!greg From: greg@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Greg Noel) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: Signals after exec Message-ID: <963@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> Date: 28 Feb 89 07:50:27 GMT References: <1187@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> <9687@smoke.BRL.MIL> <90896@sun.uucp> <941@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <2071@lcuxlm.ATT.COM> Distribution: na Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo Lines: 28 In article <941@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, I write: > This was my initial reaction, too, but then I remembered a paper at the > Winter USENIX conference that presented something called "variable-weight > processes." This paper very neatly unified the model of a thread and a > process by defining groups of resources, including memory map, file > descriptors, signals, and other resources, that could be shared between In article <2071@lcuxlm.ATT.COM> ram@lcuxlm.ATT.COM (Miani Rich) writes: >I think the paper was entitled "Lightweight Processes" .... The citation is "Variable-Weight Processes with Flexible Shared Resources" by Ziya Aral, Illya Gertner, Alan Langerman, and Greg Schaffer of Encore Computer Group and James Bloom and Thomas Doepplner of Brown University. It's in the proceedings of the Winter 1989 USENIX Technical Conference, pages 405-412. It's this sort of model that allows the Unix operating system to grow and still remain compatible with earlier versions -- identifying the common concept behind different things. This particular model unifies processes and threads in a way so that a program can have greater control over its resources. I hope those architects who are designing our follow- on operating systems (I'm thinking of Mach, 4.4BSD, SysV.4, ...) should look at this paper and think seriously about this model. Encore is on the the net, and I think Brown is, as well. Do any of the authors (or others) wish to discuss the subject further? -- -- Greg Noel, NCR Rancho Bernardo Greg.Noel@SanDiego.NCR.COM or greg@ncr-sd