Miksi ei ole Odd-numeroituja Windows-prosessin tunnuksia?

Sisällysluettelo:

Miksi ei ole Odd-numeroituja Windows-prosessin tunnuksia?
Miksi ei ole Odd-numeroituja Windows-prosessin tunnuksia?

Video: Miksi ei ole Odd-numeroituja Windows-prosessin tunnuksia?

Video: Miksi ei ole Odd-numeroituja Windows-prosessin tunnuksia?
Video: Windows's Registry: Understand and Troubleshoot - YouTube 2024, Maaliskuu
Anonim
Jos pidät tinkeringistä Windows-ohjelmistosta ja oppimista ajettaessasi, saatat huomata, että Windowsin prosessi- ja keskustelulomakkeet ovat parillisia ja nelinkertaisia. Miksi niin? Tänään SuperUser Q & A -postilla on vastauksia utelias lukijan kysymyksiin.
Jos pidät tinkeringistä Windows-ohjelmistosta ja oppimista ajettaessasi, saatat huomata, että Windowsin prosessi- ja keskustelulomakkeet ovat parillisia ja nelinkertaisia. Miksi niin? Tänään SuperUser Q & A -postilla on vastauksia utelias lukijan kysymyksiin.

Tämän päivän kysymys- ja vastausistunto tulee meihin SuperUserin hyväksi - Stack Exchangein alaosasto, joka on yhteisöllinen Q & A-sivustojen ryhmittely.

Kysymys

SuperUser-lukija Peter Hahndorf haluaa tietää, miksi ei ole olemassa parittomia Windows-prosessin tunnuksia:

There are many ways to look at the process IDs in Windows. Using PowerShell:

I get this result:
I get this result:
As you can see, all the process IDs are even-numbered, not only that, they are all multiples of four. You can look as hard as you want and you will never find an odd-numbered process ID, at least not on any version that is Windows NT-based. What is the reason for this?
As you can see, all the process IDs are even-numbered, not only that, they are all multiples of four. You can look as hard as you want and you will never find an odd-numbered process ID, at least not on any version that is Windows NT-based. What is the reason for this?

Miksi ei ole parittomia Windows-prosessin tunnuksia?

Vastaus

SuperUser-avustaja DavidPostilla on meille vastaus:

Why are there no odd-numbered Windows process IDs?

The same code that allocates kernel handles is also used to allocate process and thread IDs. Since kernel handles are a multiple of four, so are process and thread IDs.

Why are process and thread IDs multiples of four?

On Windows NT-based operating systems, process and thread IDs always happen to be a multiple of four. Is this just a coincidence?

Yes, it is just a coincidence, and you should not rely on it since it is not part of the programming contract. For example, Windows 95 process and thread IDs were not always multiples of four. By comparison, the reason that kernel handles are always a multiple of four is part of the specification and will be guaranteed for the foreseeable future.

Process and thread IDs are multiples of four as a side-effect of code reuse. The same code that allocates kernel handles is also used to allocate process and thread IDs. Since kernel handles are multiples of four, so are process and thread IDs. This is an implementation detail, so do not write code that relies on it. I am just telling you to satisfy your curiosity.

Source: Why are process and thread IDs multiples of four?

Why are kernel handles always a multiple of four?

Something that is not very well known is that the bottom two bits of kernel handles are always zero; in other words, their numeric value is always a multiple of four. Note that this applies only to kernel handles; it does not apply to pseudo-handles or to any other type of handle (USER handles, GDI handles, multimedia handles, etc.). Kernel handles are things you can pass to the CloseHandle function.

That at least the bottom bit of kernel handles are always zero is implied by the GetQueuedCompletionStatus function, which indicates that you can set the bottom bit of the event handle to suppress completion port notification. In order for this to work, the bottom bit must normally be zero.
That at least the bottom bit of kernel handles are always zero is implied by the GetQueuedCompletionStatus function, which indicates that you can set the bottom bit of the event handle to suppress completion port notification. In order for this to work, the bottom bit must normally be zero.

This information is not useful for most application writers, which should continue to treat handles as opaque values. The people who would be interested in tag bits are those who are implementing low-level class libraries or are wrapping kernel objects inside a larger framework.

Source: Why are kernel handles always a multiple of four?

Further Reading

The Old New Thing: Practical Development Throughout the Evolution of Windows by Raymond Chen (Principal Software Design Engineer at Microsoft)

Onko jokin asia lisättävä selitykseen? Kuulkaa kommentit. Haluatko lukea lisää vastauksia muilta tech-tajuilta Stack Exchange-käyttäjiltä? Katso koko keskusteluketju täältä.

Suositeltava: