On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 05:09:22AM +0200, ????? ???????????? wrote:
> Reducing the *number* of system calls is not the solution. The problem
> is that vfork and exec don't know that they are called in a sequence.
Please see the manpage for vfork(2). They most certainly do know that
they're called in sequence:
The vfork() and vforkx() functions create a new process
without fully copying the address space of the old process.
These functions are useful in instances where the purpose of
a fork(2) operation is to create a new system context for an
execve() operation (see exec(2)).
Unlike with the fork() function, the child process borrows
the parent's memory and thread of control until a call to
execve() or an exit (either abnormally or by a call to
_exit() (see exit(2)).
-j
_______________________________________________
perf-discuss mailing list
perf-discuss@opensolaris.org
