thread vs process

Threads share same memory.. processes do not.
Q. Do you know segments in which program gets divided?
My answer: yep(thought it was easy one) Stack, Data, Code, Heap
Q. So tell me which segment thread share?


threads share all segments except the stack.
Threads have independent call stacks, however the memory in other thread stacks is still accessible and in theory you could hold a pointer to memory in some other thread's local stack frame.

Both processes and threads are independent sequences of execution. The typical difference is that threads (of the same process) run in a shared memory space, while processes run in separate memory spaces.
I'm not sure what "hardware" vs "software" threads might be referring to. Threads are an operating environment feature, rather than a CPU feature (though the CPU typically has operations that make threads efficient).
Erlang uses the term "process" because it does not expose a shared-memory multiprogramming model. Calling them "threads" would imply that they have shared memory.
 

 

 

 

Threads differ from traditional multitasking operating system processes in that:

• processes are typically independent, while threads exist as subsets of a process
• processes carry considerable state information, whereas multiple threads within a process share state as well as memory and other resources
• processes have separate address spaces, whereas threads share their address space
• processes interact only through system-provided inter-process communication mechanisms.
• Context switching between threads in the same process is typically faster than context switching between processes.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tell the interviewer that it depends entirely on the implementation of the OS.
Take Windows x86 for example. There are only 2 segments [1], Code and Data. And they're both mapped to the whole 2GB (linear, user) address space. Base=0, Limit=2GB. They would've made one but x86 doesn't allow a segment to be both Read/Write and Execute. So they made two, and set CS to point to the code descriptor, and the rest (DS, ES, SS, etc) to point to the other [2]. But both point to the same stuff!

The person interviewing you had made a hidden assumption that he/she did not state, and that is a stupid trick to pull.
So regarding

Q. So tell me which segment thread share?

The segments are irrelevant to the question, at least on Windows. Threads share the whole address space. There is only 1 stack segment, SS, and it points to the exact same stuff that DS, ES, and CS do [2]. I.e. the whole bloody user space. 0-2GB. Of course, that doesn't mean threads only have 1 stack. Naturally each has its own stack, but x86 segments are not used for this purpose.
Maybe *nix does something different. Who knows. The premise the question was based on was broken.

---

1. At least for user space.
2. From ntsd notepad: cs=001b ss=0023 ds=0023 es=0023