Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 01:02:24 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Bacarella <mbac@nyct.net> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, Scott Hess <scott@avantgo.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: rfork() [was: Concept check] Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10001110055470.26127-100000@bsd1.nyct.net> In-Reply-To: <20000110170822.J9397@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > :I've implemented a rough fix, which is to rfork() processes which I label [snip] > > > > The linuxthreads port is at least four times faster and, since it uses > > rfork(), will be I/O optimal. However, since only FreeBSD-4.x implements > > rfork(...RF_MEM) you can only use it with FreeBSD-4.x (or am I wrong > > there?). This 3.4-STABLE system has an rfork() man page. > I'm pretty sure RF_MEM doesn't work in 3.x with SMP, under UP it should > work fine I'm sorry I missed the discussion on rfork()... but I say this only because I want to understand. What were you thinking? rfork()? Why is it a system call? Almost all of the flags it accepts seem like functionality that can easily be implemented in userspace around fork() (and maybe vfork()). Why? Michael Bacarella To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.10001110055470.26127-100000>