From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15068 invoked by alias); 6 Mar 2003 01:44:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15061 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2003 01:44:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (172.16.49.200) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 6 Mar 2003 01:44:52 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E27F2A9C; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:44:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E66A811.8030203@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 01:44:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: "J. Johnston" , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gcore and nptl threads on linux References: <3E653983.8010005@redhat.com> <20030305005218.GA9222@nevyn.them.org> <3E662E68.7010205@redhat.com> <20030305172511.GB4425@nevyn.them.org> <3E669CA1.2010201@redhat.com> <20030306010428.GA17878@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00113.txt.bz2 > On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 07:56:01PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> > >> >>I would think the null_ptid would serve in such a case. > >> > >> > >> >I guess the issue is that we should be dumping the set of LWPs to the >> >generated core file, not the set of threads. It seems to me like GDB >> >should be aware of the list of LWPs, and it shouldn't be hidden in each >> >individual thread package. > >> >> You mean add them to the `struct thread_info' list? Why not (ignoring >> technical realities for the moment :-)? > > > Well, I wouldn't do it that way. I haven't really designed this, so > bear with me if it has some squishy spots. > > I think there should be two lists: > all threads > all lwps I believe in `zero, one, many': - lwps - processes - threads (as in pthread) - threads (as in a java interpreter thread) - tasks (as in ada) Each has something like: - an architecture - a target - an owner? For instance, an ada task might be implemented using a p-thread, which might in turn be implemented using an lwp-thread. Only, the task is doing an rpc to java interpreter thread running in a separate process. Each category can either maintain a local private database, or they can all share a common database. If the info is more central, it becomes easier for the user to query/manipulate it. > Should the data structures be the same? I don't know. The mapping > between them would be defined by the thread stratum; its role would be > to take thread requests, convert them to LWP requests, and pass them > on. The process stratum would be responsible for managing all of the > LWPs. Things to do today should include throwing out stratum (along with the bath water). > This has some advantages, I think. Here's one: we would have a logical > interface for reporting an event from an LWP that doesn't currently > have a thread. This happens in LinuxThreads, as I've mentioned > recently. The thread stratum could see that the inferior ptid was just > an LWP id and pass the request along no questions asked. ? That sounds a bit up-side-down, shouldn't events be propogating up - lwp gets to see them before thread? > Hmm, definitely some loose edges in that one. Should both an LWP and a > thread have a regcache? Might work. Don't forget that a regcache is just a local performance optimization - a look-a-side buffer. Andrew