Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 09 Jan 1999 16:04:05 +0100 | From | Marcin Dalecki <> | Subject | Re: Porting vfork() |
| |
Rogier Wolff wrote: > > H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > Followup to: <19990105154611.A16497@draper.net> > > By author: kernel@draper.net > > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > > > > > So, the question: is linux vfork() behavior annoying anyone else and is it > > > worth fixing? (other than to eliminate its appearance in the BUG area of the > > > Linux fork() man page ;) > > > > > > > I think you can mimic the BSD vfork() at the library level by using > > clone() and perhaps trapping exec(). > > vfork was a good idea when you didn't have a memory management > unit. Then you had to copy over and possibly re-link the existing > process to a new place in memory. That was a costly process. Yes Unix > did run on that kind of hardware in the eighties. > > Nowadays the overhead is almost non-existent, so it is not neccesary > to make the distinction....
Unless you go and maybe port it so some microcontroller like to 68k series for example. (That had been done!) There you still don't have a memory management that powerfull.
Marcin
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |