On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 06:41:31PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> As to your question, posix_spawn(2) wouldn't fork at all under the
> covers: as a syscall it'd not have to. It'd create a new process as a
> child of the parent, but it'd not use the parent's address space at all.
> There'd still be some amount of locking to copy the file descriptor
> table and so on, of course, but nothing quite like the copying or
^^^^^^^
> borrowing of the parent's address space (almost certainly the most
> expensive part of fork(2)/ vfork(2)).
There I meant "COWing" (plus pre-copying of whatever pages the system
thinks the child will need to COW).
_______________________________________________
on-discuss mailing list
on-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/on-discuss
