On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 01:07:55PM -0400, David Schultz wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > Ed Schouten wrote: > > >* David Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>I have no objections to this, but doesn't it defeat the whole > > >>purpose to implement posix_spawn() as a library function that just > > >>calls fork/exec? > > > > > >When (if?) applications start to use posix_spawn() we may decide to move > > >it into the kernel at any time. It should be okay for now. > > > > Are there any benefits of doing it in the kernel vs. doing it via fork+exec? > > The only reason spawn exists is to better support platforms where > fork is slow, so implementing it in terms of fork/exec defeats the > purpose and potentially tricks configure scripts into making > incorrect assumptions about performance tradeoffs.
It also helps on platforms like Solaris which refuse to overcommit,
where a large process, say a 4GB JVM, would otherwise need another 4GB
of swap free in order for fork to succeed.
Ceri
--
That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
-- Moliere
pgp9L4gAQf3sJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
