On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 06:41:32PM -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)).
I'd like to see data for this assertion too. The code that's executed for vfork performs very few address space manipulations while borrowing the parent's address space. All it does today is clear and restore watched pages. Most processes don't have watchpoints on their pages. -j _______________________________________________ on-discuss mailing list on-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/on-discuss
