On a linux system, does the child process view the existing threads the same way as the parent process ?
int main() {
//create thread 1
int child_pid = fork();
if ( 0 == child_pid)
{
..
}
else
{
..
}
Since the whole address space is copied for the child process, what happens to the state of the threads. What if the thread 1 in the above segment is waiting on a conditional signal. Is it in the waiting state in child process as well ?
Threads on Linux nowadays try to stay POSIX compliant. Only the calling thread is replicated, not other threads (note that e.g. on Solaris you can choose what fork does depending on what library you link to)
From http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/functions/fork.html (POSIX 2004):
A process shall be created with a
single thread. If a multi-threaded
process calls fork(), the new process
shall contain a replica of the calling
thread and its entire address space,
possibly including the states of
mutexes and other resources.
Consequently, to avoid errors, the
child process may only execute
async-signal-safe operations until
such time as one of the exec functions
is called. Fork
handlers may be established by means
of the pthread_atfork() function in
order to maintain application
invariants across fork() calls.
The POSIX 2018 specification of fork() is similar.
Threads are not inherited from a child process on a linux system using fork(). An in-depth source is here: http://linas.org/linux/threads-faq.html
Related
I had a doubt on using fork on a multi-threaded process.
If a process has multiple threads (already created using pthread_create and did a pthread_join) and I call fork, will it copy the same functions assigned to the threads in the child process or create a space where we can reassign the functions?
Read carefully what POSIX says about fork() and threads. In particular:
A process shall be created with a single thread. If a multi-threaded process calls fork(), the new process shall contain a replica of the calling thread and its entire address space, possibly including the states of mutexes and other resources. Consequently, to avoid errors, the child process may only execute async-signal-safe operations until such time as one of the exec functions is called.
The child process will have a single thread running in the context of the calling thread. Other parts of the original process may be tied up by threads that no longer exist (so mutexes may be locked, for example).
The rationale section (further down the linked page) says:
There are two reasons why POSIX programmers call fork(). One reason is to create a new thread of control within the same program (which was originally only possible in POSIX by creating a new process); the other is to create a new process running a different program. In the latter case, the call to fork() is soon followed by a call to one of the exec functions.
The general problem with making fork() work in a multi-threaded world is what to do with all of the threads. There are two alternatives. One is to copy all of the threads into the new process. This causes the programmer or implementation to deal with threads that are suspended on system calls or that might be about to execute system calls that should not be executed in the new process. The other alternative is to copy only the thread that calls fork(). This creates the difficulty that the state of process-local resources is usually held in process memory. If a thread that is not calling fork() holds a resource, that resource is never released in the child process because the thread whose job it is to release the resource does not exist in the child process.
When a programmer is writing a multi-threaded program, the first described use of fork(), creating new threads in the same program, is provided by the pthread_create() function. The fork() function is thus used only to run new programs, and the effects of calling functions that require certain resources between the call to fork() and the call to an exec function are undefined.
in Linux threads are called light weight processes. Whether process or thread, they are implemented by task_struct data structure.
1> So, in that sense how kernel distinguishes between thread and process?
2> when context switching happens, how do threads get less overhead in context switching? because prior to this thread, another thread from another process may be running. So kernel should load all resources even if resources are shared between threads of a processes.
how kernel distinguishes between thread and process.
From http://www.kernel.org/doc/ols/2002/ols2002-pages-330-337.pdf and from Linux - Threads and Process
This was addressed during the 2.4 development cycle with the
addition of a concept called a ’thread group’. There is a linked
list of all tasks that are part of the thread group, and there is an
ID that represents the group, called the tgid. This ID is actually the
pid of the first task in the group (pid is the task ID assigned with a
Linux task), similar to the way sessions and process groups work. This
feature is enabled via a flag to clone().
and
In the kernel, each thread has it's own ID, called a PID (although it would possibly make more sense to call this a TID, or thread ID) and they also have a TGID (thread group ID) which is the PID of the thread that started the whole process.
Simplistically, when a new process is created, it appears as a thread
where both the PID and TGID are the same (new) number.
When a thread starts another thread, that started thread gets its own
PID (so the scheduler can schedule it independently) but it inherits
the TGID from the original thread.
So a main thread is a thread with the same PID and TGID and this PID is a process PID. A thread (but not a main thread) has different PID but the same TID.
Inside kernel, each process and threads have a unique id (even threads of same process) which is stored in pid variable and threads of same process also share a common id which is stored in tgid variable, and is returned to user when getpid() is invoked therefore allowing kernel to distinguish them as different entities which are schedulable in themselves.
When a thread is preempted by another thread of same process, since various segments such as .text, .bss, .data, file descriptors etc. are shared and hence allows a fast context switch compared to when different processes are context switched, or when threads of different processes are context switched.
It seems you mixed some concepts together, implemented by the same data structure does not mean they run in the same way.
you can read
what-is-the-difference-between-a-process-and-a-thread to clarify your comprehension about process and thread firstly.
My understanding is that threads and processes are really the same entity on Linux, the difference being in what memory is shared between them. I'm finding that it's...difficult to ensure that child processes are properly cleaned up without explicit communication between the parent and child. I'd like to be able to run sub-processes with a similar mental model as threads, in that they're cleaned up automatically when the parent exits, but with the memory safety that processes provide. How does Linux manage to clean up threads automatically, and can that same mechanism be used for child processes?
After reading the Linux source, I think I have the answer. Tasks are differentiated by their task ID and thread group ID. getpid() actually returns the thread group ID of the tasks, which is the same for all tasks in the group. This lets the kernel have a single notion of schedulable task which can be used to implement threading.
Since glibc 2.3, exit() actually invokes the exit_group syscall, rather than just the exit syscall. This syscall kills all the tasks in a thread group rather than just the calling task. It does this by sending a SIGKILL to all the tasks with the same thread ID.
I was looking to find the difference between these four on Google and I expected there to be a huge amount of information on this, but there really wasn't any solid comparison between the four calls.
I set about trying to compile a kind of basic at-a-glance look at the differences between these system calls and here's what I got. Is all this information correct/am I missing anything important ?
Fork : The fork call basically makes a duplicate of the current process, identical in almost every way (not everything is copied over, for example, resource limits in some implementations but the idea is to create as close a copy as possible).
The new process (child) gets a different process ID (PID) and has the PID of the old process (parent) as its parent PID (PPID). Because the two processes are now running exactly the same code, they can tell which is which by the return code of fork - the child gets 0, the parent gets the PID of the child. This is all, of course, assuming the fork call works - if not, no child is created and the parent gets an error code.
Vfork: The basic difference between vfork() and fork() is that when a new process is created with vfork(), the parent process is temporarily suspended, and the child process might borrow the parent's address space. This strange state of affairs continues until the child process either exits, or calls execve(), at which point the parent
process continues.
This means that the child process of a vfork() must be careful to avoid unexpectedly modifying variables of the parent process. In particular, the child process must not return from the function containing the vfork() call, and it must not call exit() (if it needs to exit, it should use _exit(); actually, this is also true for the child of a normal fork()).
Exec: The exec call is a way to basically replace the entire current process with a new program. It loads the program into the current process space and runs it from the entry point. exec() replaces the current process with a the executable pointed by the function. Control never returns to the original program unless there is an exec() error.
Clone: clone(), as fork(), creates a new process. Unlike fork(), these calls allow the child process to share parts of its execution context with the calling process, such as the memory space, the table of file descriptors, and the table of signal handlers.
When the child process is created with clone(), it executes the function application fn(arg) (This differs from fork(), where execution continues in the child from the point of the original fork() call.) The fn argument is a pointer to a function that is called by the child process at the beginning of its execution. The arg argument is passed to the fn function.
When the fn(arg) function application returns, the child process terminates. The integer returned by fn is the exit code for the child process. The child process may also terminate explicitly by calling exit(2) or after receiving a fatal signal.
Information gotten from:
Differences between fork and exec
http://www.allinterview.com/showanswers/59616.html
http://www.unixguide.net/unix/programming/1.1.2.shtml
http://linux.about.com/library/cmd/blcmdl2_clone.htm
Thanks for taking the time to read this ! :)
vfork() is an obsolete optimization. Before good memory management, fork() made a full copy of the parent's memory, so it was pretty expensive. since in many cases a fork() was followed by exec(), which discards the current memory map and creates a new one, it was a needless expense. Nowadays, fork() doesn't copy the memory; it's simply set as "copy on write", so fork()+exec() is just as efficient as vfork()+exec().
clone() is the syscall used by fork(). with some parameters, it creates a new process, with others, it creates a thread. the difference between them is just which data structures (memory space, processor state, stack, PID, open files, etc) are shared or not.
execve() replaces the current executable image with another one loaded from an executable file.
fork() creates a child process.
vfork() is a historical optimized version of fork(), meant to be used when execve() is called directly after fork(). It turned out to work well in non-MMU systems (where fork() cannot work in an efficient manner) and when fork()ing processes with a huge memory footprint to run some small program (think Java's Runtime.exec()). POSIX has standardized the posix_spawn() to replace these latter two more modern uses of vfork().
posix_spawn() does the equivalent of a fork()/execve(), and also allows some fd juggling in between. It's supposed to replace fork()/execve(), mainly for non-MMU platforms.
pthread_create() creates a new thread.
clone() is a Linux-specific call, which can be used to implement anything from fork() to pthread_create(). It gives a lot of control. Inspired on rfork().
rfork() is a Plan-9 specific call. It's supposed to be a generic call, allowing several degrees of sharing, between full processes and threads.
fork() - creates a new child process, which is a complete copy of the parent process. Child and parent processes use different virtual address spaces, which is initially populated by the same memory pages. Then, as both processes are executed, the virtual address spaces begin to differ more and more, because the operating system performs a lazy copying of memory pages that are being written by either of these two processes and assigns an independent copies of the modified pages of memory for each process. This technique is called Copy-On-Write (COW).
vfork() - creates a new child process, which is a "quick" copy of the parent process. In contrast to the system call fork(), child and parent processes share the same virtual address space. NOTE! Using the same virtual address space, both the parent and child use the same stack, the stack pointer and the instruction pointer, as in the case of the classic fork()! To prevent unwanted interference between parent and child, which use the same stack, execution of the parent process is frozen until the child will call either exec() (create a new virtual address space and a transition to a different stack) or _exit() (termination of the process execution). vfork() is the optimization of fork() for "fork-and-exec" model. It can be performed 4-5 times faster than the fork(), because unlike the fork() (even with COW kept in the mind), implementation of vfork() system call does not include the creation of a new address space (the allocation and setting up of new page directories).
clone() - creates a new child process. Various parameters of this system call, specify which parts of the parent process must be copied into the child process and which parts will be shared between them. As a result, this system call can be used to create all kinds of execution entities, starting from threads and finishing by completely independent processes. In fact, clone() system call is the base which is used for the implementation of pthread_create() and all the family of the fork() system calls.
exec() - resets all the memory of the process, loads and parses specified executable binary, sets up new stack and passes control to the entry point of the loaded executable. This system call never return control to the caller and serves for loading of a new program to the already existing process. This system call with fork() system call together form a classical UNIX process management model called "fork-and-exec".
The fork(),vfork() and clone() all call the do_fork() to do the real work, but with different parameters.
asmlinkage int sys_fork(struct pt_regs regs)
{
return do_fork(SIGCHLD, regs.esp, ®s, 0);
}
asmlinkage int sys_clone(struct pt_regs regs)
{
unsigned long clone_flags;
unsigned long newsp;
clone_flags = regs.ebx;
newsp = regs.ecx;
if (!newsp)
newsp = regs.esp;
return do_fork(clone_flags, newsp, ®s, 0);
}
asmlinkage int sys_vfork(struct pt_regs regs)
{
return do_fork(CLONE_VFORK | CLONE_VM | SIGCHLD, regs.esp, ®s, 0);
}
#define CLONE_VFORK 0x00004000 /* set if the parent wants the child to wake it up on mm_release */
#define CLONE_VM 0x00000100 /* set if VM shared between processes */
SIGCHLD means the child should send this signal to its father when exit.
For fork, the child and father has the independent VM page table, but since the efficiency, fork will not really copy any pages, it just set all the writeable pages to readonly for child process. So when child process want to write something on that page, an page exception happen and kernel will alloc a new page cloned from the old page with write permission. That's called "copy on write".
For vfork, the virtual memory is exactly by child and father---just because of that, father and child can't be awake concurrently since they will influence each other. So the father will sleep at the end of "do_fork()" and awake when child call exit() or execve() since then it will own new page table. Here is the code(in do_fork()) that the father sleep.
if ((clone_flags & CLONE_VFORK) && (retval > 0))
down(&sem);
return retval;
Here is the code(in mm_release() called by exit() and execve()) which awake the father.
up(tsk->p_opptr->vfork_sem);
For sys_clone(), it is more flexible since you can input any clone_flags to it. So pthread_create() call this system call with many clone_flags:
int clone_flags = (CLONE_VM | CLONE_FS | CLONE_FILES | CLONE_SIGNAL | CLONE_SETTLS | CLONE_PARENT_SETTID | CLONE_CHILD_CLEARTID | CLONE_SYSVSEM);
Summary: the fork(),vfork() and clone() will create child processes with different mount of sharing resource with the father process. We also can say the vfork() and clone() can create threads(actually they are processes since they have independent task_struct) since they share the VM page table with father process.
in fork(), either child or parent process will execute based on cpu selection..
But in vfork(), surely child will execute first. after child terminated, parent will execute.
I am having some trouble understanding how to use Unix's fork(). I am used to, when in need of parallelization, spawining threads in my application. It's always something of the form
CreateNewThread(MyFunctionToRun());
void myFunctionToRun() { ... }
Now, when learning about Unix's fork(), I was given examples of the form:
fork();
printf("%d\n", 123);
in which the code after the fork is "split up". I can't understand how fork() can be useful. Why doesn't fork() have a similar syntax to the above CreateNewThread(), where you pass it the address of a function you want to run?
To accomplish something similar to CreateNewThread(), I'd have to be creative and do something like
//pseudo code
id = fork();
if (id == 0) { //im the child
FunctionToRun();
} else { //im the parent
wait();
}
Maybe the problem is that I am so used to spawning threads the .NET way that I can't think clearly about this. What am I missing here? What are the advantages of fork() over CreateNewThread()?
PS: I know fork() will spawn a new process, while CreateNewThread() will spawn a new thread.
Thanks
fork() says "copy the current process state into a new process and start it running from right here." Because the code is then running in two processes, it in fact returns twice: once in the parent process (where it returns the child process's process identifier) and once in the child (where it returns zero).
There are a lot of restrictions on what it is safe to call in the child process after fork() (see below). The expectation is that the fork() call was part one of spawning a new process running a new executable with its own state. Part two of this process is a call to execve() or one of its variants, which specifies the path to an executable to be loaded into the currently running process, the arguments to be provided to that process, and the environment variables to surround that process. (There is nothing to stop you from re-executing the currently running executable and providing a flag that will make it pick up where the parent left off, if that's what you really want.)
The UNIX fork()-exec() dance is roughly the equivalent of the Windows CreateProcess(). A newer function is even more like it: posix_spawn().
As a practical example of using fork(), consider a shell, such as bash. fork() is used all the time by a command shell. When you tell the shell to run a program (such as echo "hello world"), it forks itself and then execs that program. A pipeline is a collection of forked processes with stdout and stdin rigged up appropriately by the parent in between fork() and exec().
If you want to create a new thread, you should use the Posix threads library. You create a new Posix thread (pthread) using pthread_create(). Your CreateNewThread() example would look like this:
#include <pthread.h>
/* Pthread functions are expected to accept and return void *. */
void *MyFunctionToRun(void *dummy __unused);
pthread_t thread;
int error = pthread_create(&thread,
NULL/*use default thread attributes*/,
MyFunctionToRun,
(void *)NULL/*argument*/);
Before threads were available, fork() was the closest thing UNIX provided to multithreading. Now that threads are available, usage of fork() is almost entirely limited to spawning a new process to execute a different executable.
below: The restrictions are because fork() predates multithreading, so only the thread that calls fork() continues to execute in the child process. Per POSIX:
A process shall be created with a single thread. If a multi-threaded process calls fork(), the new process shall contain a replica of the calling thread and its entire address space, possibly including the states of mutexes and other resources. Consequently, to avoid errors, the child process may only execute async-signal-safe operations until such time as one of the exec functions is called. [THR] [Option Start] Fork handlers may be established by means of the pthread_atfork() function in order to maintain application invariants across fork() calls. [Option End]
When the application calls fork() from a signal handler and any of the fork handlers registered by pthread_atfork() calls a function that is not asynch-signal-safe, the behavior is undefined.
Because any library function you call could have spawned a thread on your behalf, the paranoid assumption is that you are always limited to executing async-signal-safe operations in the child process between calling fork() and exec().
History aside, there are some fundamental differences with respect to ownership of resource and life time between processes and threads.
When you fork, the new process occupies a completely separate memory space. That's a very important distinction from creating a new thread. In multi-threaded applications you have to consider how you access and manipulate shared resources. Processed that have been forked have to explicitly share resources using inter-process means such as shared memory, pipes, remote procedure calls, semaphores, etc.
Another difference is that fork()'ed children can outlive their parent, where as all threads die when the process terminates.
In a client-server architecture where very, very long uptime is expected, using fork() rather than creating threads could be a valid strategy to combat memory leaks. Rather than worrying about cleaning up memory leaks in your threads, you just fork off a new child process to process each client request, then kill the child when it's done. The only source of memory leaks would then be the parent process that dispatches events.
An analogy: You can think of spawning threads as opening tabs inside a single browser window, while forking is like opening separate browser windows.
It would be more valid to ask why CreateNewThread doesn't just return a thread id like fork() does... after all fork() set a precedent. Your opinion's just coloured by you having seen one before the other. Take a step back and consider that fork() duplicates the process and continues execution... what better place than at the next instruction? Why complicate things by adding a function call into the bargain (and then one what only takes void*)?
Your comment to Mike says "I can't understand is in which contexts you'd want to use it.". Basically, you use it when you want to:
run another process using the exec family of functions
do some parallel processing independently (in terms of memory usage, signal handling, resources, security, robustness), for example:
each process may have intrusive limits of the number of file descriptors they can manage, or on a 32-bit system - the amount of memory: a second process can share the work while getting its own resources
web browsers tend to fork distinct processes because they can do some initialisation then call operating system functions to permanently reduce their privileges (e.g. change to a less-trusted user id, change the "root" directory under which they can access files, or make some memory pages read-only); most OSes don't allow the same extent of fine-grained permission-setting on a per-thread basis; another benefit is if a child process seg-faults or similar the parent process can handle that and continue, whereas similar faults in multi-threaded code raise questions about whether memory has been corrupted - or locks have been held - by the crashing thread such that remaining threads are compromised
BTW / using UNIX/Linux doesn't mean you have to give up threads for fork()ing processes... you can use pthread_create() and related functions if you're more comfortable with the threading paradigm.
Letting the difference between spawning a process and a thread set aside for a second: Basically, fork() is a more fundamental primitive. While SpawnNewThread has to do some background work to get the program counter in the right spot, fork does no such work, it just copies (or virtually copies) your program memory and continues the counter.
Fork has been with us for a very, very, long time. Fork was thought of before the idea of 'start a thread running a particular function' was a glimmer in anyone's eye.
People don't use fork because it's 'better,' we use it because it is the one and only unprivileged user-mode process creation function that works across all variations of Linux. If you want to create a process, you have to call fork. And, for some purposes, a process is what you need, not a thread.
You might consider researching the early papers on the subject.
It is worth noting that multi-processing not exactly the same as multi-threading. The new process created by fork share very little context with the old one, which is quite different from the case for threads.
So, lets look at the unixy thread system: pthread_create has semantics similar to CreateNewThread.
Or, to turn it around, lets look at the windows (or java or other system that makes its living with threads) way of spawning a process identical to the one you're currently running (which is what fork does on unix)...well, we could except that there isn't one: that just not part of the all-threads-all-the-time model. (Which is not a bad thing, mind you, just different).
You fork whenever you want to more than one thing at the same time. It’s called multitasking, and is really useful.
Here for example is a telnetish like program:
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use IO::Socket;
my ($host, $port, $kidpid, $handle, $line);
unless (#ARGV == 2) { die "usage: $0 host port" }
($host, $port) = #ARGV;
# create a tcp connection to the specified host and port
$handle = IO::Socket::INET->new(Proto => "tcp",
PeerAddr => $host,
PeerPort => $port)
or die "can't connect to port $port on $host: $!";
$handle->autoflush(1); # so output gets there right away
print STDERR "[Connected to $host:$port]\n";
# split the program into two processes, identical twins
die "can't fork: $!" unless defined($kidpid = fork());
if ($kidpid) {
# parent copies the socket to standard output
while (defined ($line = <$handle>)) {
print STDOUT $line;
}
kill("TERM" => $kidpid); # send SIGTERM to child
}
else {
# child copies standard input to the socket
while (defined ($line = <STDIN>)) {
print $handle $line;
}
}
exit;
See how easy that is?
Fork()'s most popular use is as a way to clone a server for each new client that connect()s (because the new process inherits all file descriptors in whatever state they exist).
But I've also used it to initiate a new (locally running) service on-demand from a client.
That scheme is best done with two calls to fork() - one stays in the parent session until the server is up and running and able to connect, the other (I fork it off from the child) becomes the server and departs the parent's session so it can no longer be reached by (say) SIGQUIT.