Subject: Re: new vfork(2) implementation
To: Wolfgang Solfrank <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Todd Vierling <tv@NetBSD.ORG>
Date: 01/05/1998 14:57:58
On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Wolfgang Solfrank wrote:
: > Is there any reason sh could be "fixed" to use vfork()? Considering the
: > enormous number of scripts out there that use sh, this could be a big
: > performance gain.
: Hmm, I know it's probably only me, but IMHO vfork _is_ a bug.
I know you're not the only one that feels that way, but I believe it isn't
for the following reasons:
- Not all machines are truthfully fast enough to make copying a bunch of
copy-on-write pmap pages efficient. Much less an entire process space
like very old fork()s did.
- With vfork(), the page maps are created only once, as opposed to twice
with fork(). (Once at fork time, once at exec time.)
- We don't have something more efficient like a function that forks and
- fork() is a sensationally old hack in itself. So don't rag on vfork().
===== Todd Vierling (Personal email@example.com; Business firstname.lastname@example.org) =====
== "There's a myth that there is a scarcity of justice to go around, so
== that if we extend justice to 'those people,' it will somehow erode the
== quality of justice everyone else receives." -- Maria Price