[lkml]   [1999]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Porting vfork()
    On Tue, Jan 05, 1999 at 03:46:11PM -0600, wrote:
    > 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 ;)

    What are you doing with vfork? The reason vfork exists is in the special
    case where fork() is followed by exec*(), and the memory copy (used to be?)
    prohibitively expensive. [I am missing a reference to this effect, so I
    can't be 100% authoritative. Reportedly, _The Magic Garden Explained_
    talks about this, but I am passing this along secondhand]

    Is it possible that you're taking advantage of the shared memory as
    mentioned in SunOS 5.6's manpage for vfork, or the Stevens book mentioned
    in the vfork-related message at [1] (be sure you read the reply at [2]?
    In this case, you may be able to use clone(0, SIGCHLD) instead of vfork().
    Maybe something like
    #ifdef LINUX
    #define vfork() clone(0, SIGCHLD)
    but until you make clear what abuse of vfork() you're relying on, who knows
    whether this does what you want.

    \/ Jeff Epler
    Term, holidays, term, holidays, till we leave school, and then work, work,
    work till we die.
    -- C.S. Lewis

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:49    [W:0.019 / U:74.048 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site