Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 7404341
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 29, 20262026-05-29T05:14:32+00:00 2026-05-29T05:14:32+00:00

After reading up on this answer and Linux Kernel Development by Robert Love and,

  • 0

After reading up on this answer and “Linux Kernel Development” by Robert Love and, subsequently, on the clone() system call, I discovered that processes and threads in Linux are (almost) indistinguishable to the kernel. There are a few tweaks between them (discussed as being “more sharing” or “less sharing” in the quoted SO question), but I do still have some questions yet to be answered.

I recently worked on a program involving a couple of POSIX threads and decided to experiment on this premise. On a process that creates two threads, all threads of course get a unique value returned by pthread_self(), however, not by getpid().

A sample program I created follows:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <pthread.h>

void* threadMethod(void* arg)
{
    int intArg = (int) *((int*) arg);

    int32_t pid = getpid();
    uint64_t pti = pthread_self();

    printf("[Thread %d] getpid() = %d\n", intArg, pid);
    printf("[Thread %d] pthread_self() = %lu\n", intArg, pti);
}

int main()
{
    pthread_t threads[2];

    int thread1 = 1;

    if ((pthread_create(&threads[0], NULL, threadMethod, (void*) &thread1))
         != 0)
    {
        fprintf(stderr, "pthread_create: error\n");
        exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
    }

    int thread2 = 2;

    if ((pthread_create(&threads[1], NULL, threadMethod, (void*) &thread2))
         != 0)
    {
        fprintf(stderr, "pthread_create: error\n");
        exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
    }

    int32_t pid = getpid();
    uint64_t pti = pthread_self();

    printf("[Process] getpid() = %d\n", pid);
    printf("[Process] pthread_self() = %lu\n", pti);

    if ((pthread_join(threads[0], NULL)) != 0)
    {
        fprintf(stderr, "Could not join thread 1\n");
        exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
    }

    if ((pthread_join(threads[1], NULL)) != 0)
    {
        fprintf(stderr, "Could not join thread 2\n");
        exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
    }

    return 0;
}

(This was compiled [gcc -pthread -o thread_test thread_test.c] on 64-bit Fedora; due to the 64-bit types used for pthread_t sourced from <bits/pthreadtypes.h>, the code will require minor changes to compile on 32-bit editions.)

The output I get is as follows:

[bean@fedora ~]$ ./thread_test 
[Process] getpid() = 28549
[Process] pthread_self() = 140050170017568
[Thread 2] getpid() = 28549
[Thread 2] pthread_self() = 140050161620736
[Thread 1] getpid() = 28549
[Thread 1] pthread_self() = 140050170013440
[bean@fedora ~]$ 

By using scheduler locking in gdb, I can keep the program and its threads alive so I can capture what top says, which, just showing processes, is:

  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
28602 bean      20   0 15272 1112  820 R  0.4  0.0   0:00.63 top
 2036 bean      20   0  108m 1868 1412 S  0.0  0.0   0:00.11 bash
28547 bean      20   0  231m  16m 7676 S  0.0  0.4   0:01.56 gdb
28549 bean      20   0 22688  340  248 t  0.0  0.0   0:00.26 thread_test
28561 bean      20   0  107m 1712 1356 S  0.0  0.0   0:00.07 bash

And when showing threads, says:

  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
28617 bean      20   0 15272 1116  820 R 47.2  0.0   0:00.08 top
 2036 bean      20   0  108m 1868 1412 S  0.0  0.0   0:00.11 bash
28547 bean      20   0  231m  16m 7676 S  0.0  0.4   0:01.56 gdb
28549 bean      20   0 22688  340  248 t  0.0  0.0   0:00.26 thread_test
28552 bean      20   0 22688  340  248 t  0.0  0.0   0:00.00 thread_test
28553 bean      20   0 22688  340  248 t  0.0  0.0   0:00.00 thread_test
28561 bean      20   0  107m 1860 1432 S  0.0  0.0   0:00.08 bash

It seems to be quite clear that programs, or perhaps the kernel, have a distinct way of defining threads in contrast to processes. Each thread has its own PID according to top – why?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-29T05:14:32+00:00Added an answer on May 29, 2026 at 5:14 am

    These confusions all stem from the fact that the kernel developers originally held an irrational and wrong view that threads could be implemented almost entirely in userspace using kernel processes as the primitive, as long as the kernel offered a way to make them share memory and file descriptors. This lead to the notoriously bad LinuxThreads implementation of POSIX threads, which was rather a misnomer because it did not give anything remotely resembling POSIX thread semantics. Eventually LinuxThreads was replaced (by NPTL), but a lot of the confusing terminology and misunderstandings persist.

    The first and most important thing to realize is that “PID” means different things in kernel space and user space. What the kernel calls PIDs are actually kernel-level thread ids (often called TIDs), not to be confused with pthread_t which is a separate identifier. Each thread on the system, whether in the same process or a different one, has a unique TID (or “PID” in the kernel’s terminology).

    What’s considered a PID in the POSIX sense of “process”, on the other hand, is called a “thread group ID” or “TGID” in the kernel. Each process consists of one or more threads (kernel processes) each with their own TID (kernel PID), but all sharing the same TGID, which is equal to the TID (kernel PID) of the initial thread in which main runs.

    When top shows you threads, it’s showing TIDs (kernel PIDs), not PIDs (kernel TGIDs), and this is why each thread has a separate one.

    With the advent of NPTL, most system calls that take a PID argument or act on the calling process were changed to treat the PID as a TGID and act on the whole “thread group” (POSIX process).

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

After reading the answer to this question , I learned that SFINAE can be
After reading this answer: best way to pick a random subset from a collection?
After reading this question , i saw the answer by Naveen containing a link
After reading this article on thedailywtf.com, I'm not sure that I really got the
After reading this: http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/contrib/csrf/#how-to-use-it I came to the conclusion that it is not valid
I'm trying to understand how to use Type Converters after reading this answer to
Edit: After reading the responses, I believe the answer is don't do this, hence
(Title and contents updated after reading Alex's answer) In general I believe that it's
After reading this answer , it looks like it is a best practice to
I'm asking this question after reading this answer on StackOverflow. The supplied answer works

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.