code review 7420048: runtime: start all threads with runtime.mstart

runtime: start all threads with runtime.mstart

Putting the M initialization in multiple places will not scale.
Various code assumes mstart is the start already. Make it so.

[rsc, 2013-03-01 16:31:08]

Hello golang-dev@googlegroups.com,

I'd like you to review this change to
https://code.google.com/p/go/

[rsc, 2013-03-01 16:33:43]

I expect this to fix Windows, which was breaking because sysmon did not set
up the SEH properly.

[dho, 2013-03-01 16:38:03]

LGTM, all.bash still works on FreeBSD.

https://codereview.appspot.com/7420048/diff/2002/src/pkg/runtime/proc.c
File src/pkg/runtime/proc.c (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/7420048/diff/2002/src/pkg/runtime/proc.c#newco...
src/pkg/runtime/proc.c:247: {
whitespace?

[rsc, 2013-03-01 16:44:50]

*** Submitted as https://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=d7e930713cc6 ***

runtime: start all threads with runtime.mstart

Putting the M initialization in multiple places will not scale.
Various code assumes mstart is the start already. Make it so.

R=golang-dev, devon.odell
CC=golang-dev
https://codereview.appspot.com/7420048

[akumar, 2013-03-01 18:35:06]

Won't build on Plan 9 without this change.

Can you update this, or shall I do a separate CL?

https://codereview.appspot.com/7420048/diff/15001/src/pkg/runtime/thread_plan9.c
File src/pkg/runtime/thread_plan9.c (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/7420048/diff/15001/src/pkg/runtime/thread_plan...
src/pkg/runtime/thread_plan9.c:231: stk, mp, mp->g0, fn, runtime·rfork, mp->id,
(int32)mp->tls[0], &mp);
remove fn from this printf.

[minux1, 2013-03-01 18:37:13]

On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 2:35 AM, <seed@mail.nanosouffle.net> wrote:

> Won't build on Plan 9 without this change.
>
> Can you update this, or shall I do a separate CL?
>
already fixed by https://codereview.appspot.com/7438052.

[akumar, 2013-03-01 18:38:55]

Thanks.

On 1 March 2013 18:36, minux <minux.ma@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 2:35 AM, <seed@mail.nanosouffle.net> wrote:
>>
>> Won't build on Plan 9 without this change.
>>
>> Can you update this, or shall I do a separate CL?
>
> already fixed by https://codereview.appspot.com/7438052.