lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:49    [W:0.117 / U:0.380 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site