Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Sun, 23 Feb 1997 12:04:54 +0000 (GMT) | | From | Robert de Bath <> | | Subject | Re: Memory overcommitting (was Re: http://www.redhat.com/redhat/) |
| |
On Fri, 21 Feb 1997, Torbjorn Lindgren wrote:
> False. Linux fork() has a standard fork(), *NOT* a vfork. > > All modern *NIX'es uses Copy-on-write fork()'s, but that a very different > animal from a vfork()... Not that many *NIX'es have real vfork()'s... snip snip snip
You know, linux could have a real vfork, I _think_ it would just be a case of giving the correct options to a clone() syscall.
It might be useful when implementing a more facist mode wtr overcommits.
> > One thing that is missing in Linux is the possibility to *disable* the > overcommitment, which is very usefull for some applications...
-- Rob. (Robert de Bath <robert@mayday.cix.co.uk>)
|  |