Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:23:07 -0500 From: Linda Messerschmidt <linda.messerschmidt@gmail.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Superpages on amd64 FreeBSD 7.2-STABLE Message-ID: <237c27100912100723u77c5dd2udbcd3732ed9ee6a@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20091210145052.GX20668@cicely7.cicely.de> References: <237c27100911260714x2fcb194ew1e6ce11e764efd08@mail.gmail.com> <200912090907.33433.jhb@freebsd.org> <20091210145052.GX20668@cicely7.cicely.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Also... On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely7.cicely.de> wrote: > I use fork myself, because it is easier sometimes, but people writing > big programms such as squid should know better. > If squid doesn't use vfork they likely have a reason. Actually they are probably going to switch to vfork(). They were previously not using it because they thought there was some ambiguity about whether it was going to be around long term. I actually am not a huge fan of vfork() since it stalls the parent process until the child exec()'s. To me, this case actually highlights why that's an issue. If the explanation is that stuff is happening in the parent process between fork() and the child's exec() causes the fragmentation, that's stuff that would be deferred in a vfork() regime, with unknown potential consequences. (At a minimum, decreased performance.) But that's personal and largely uninformed opinion. :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?237c27100912100723u77c5dd2udbcd3732ed9ee6a>