httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <>
Subject Re: confused child
Date Fri, 12 Dec 1997 19:24:50 GMT
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Paul Sutton wrote:

> We use "child" two mean different things in Unix and NT. This can be
> confusing. 


You should look at the terminology I proposed for the 2.0 process models.
<> and tell me
where I've goofed.

To explain it further, I consider the current unix model (MSS) to have
multiple sub-processes, and within each subprocess there is a single
thread (and a single fiber within that thread, but fibers don't apply
to 1.x).

The current NT model (SMS) has a single sub-process, and within that
multiple threads (and within those a single fiber, but fibers don't
apply to 1.x).  But given your description I don't think I understand
the current NT model, I'll admit I haven't looked at it hard.

>   parent   -- the parent process, which looks after other processes
>               (effect: rename master_main() to parent_main())

I call this the "main process".

>   master   -- the "special" thread which looks after the threads
>               doing the real work (effect: rename worker_main()
>               to master_main())

I don't give this a name because it is specific to how a particular
processing model is implemented.  But maybe I should give it a name.

>   worker   -- a thread which actually does the request processing
>               (effect: rename child_*_main() to worker_*_main(),
>               use pworker pool instead of pchild)

I call these fibers.  But in this case, there is a one-to-one mapping
between fibers and threads.  i.e. we're not using fibers at all.

>   child    -- the name for sub-processes of the parent (that is, the
>               combination of master and worker threads). This
>               corresponds to the init_child API phase. 

I call these sub processes.


View raw message