Re: RFC: import of posix_spawn GSoC results

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <20111219215608.GA12967%panix.com@localhost>,
Thor Lancelot Simon  <tls%panix.com@localhost> wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:28:42PM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 04:18:38PM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
>> > If it doesn't perform better -- do I misunderstand, or is that in fact the
>> > case -- why dirty up the system with this superfluous interface?
>> 
>> No, I'm just saying that it does not make the existing fork/exec
>> path slower. We don't have full solid benchmark results yet, but overall
>> it looks like:
>> 
>>  - fork/exec performance does not degrade
>>  - posix_spawn performance is very similar to vfork/exec (which is not too
>>    suprising)
>> 
>> I prefer a clean posix_spawn over a vfork hack any time.
>
>What's clean about importing the VMS process model to Unix?

You realize that currently vfork() does not suspend all the threads
in a threaded program, making it difficult to use...

christos