Mail Archives: cygwin/2001/11/13/10:43:01
Ralf Habacker wrote:
>> > 3) The cygwin implementation of fork-and-exec doesn't jive well with
>> > the VM size of xemacs. Supposedly a real vfork is in the works for
>> > cygwin but I can't attest to its functionality.
> Can you explain this a little bit more ? I'm asking because in
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-xfree/2001-q4/msg00276.html I have described
> some problems with kde2 on cygwin relating performance and I'm very interested
> in getting more informations how to fix these problems. In short, loading the
> full kde2 desktop needs about 4 minutes and the reaction time for starting apps
> are > 1 minute. This seems to be unusable.
> My assumption are that these problems depends on application loading (vfork is
> used on every app), file and socket io.
> A regular kde2 app uses about 20-40 dll's, so a faster vfork would decrease the
> loading time. :-)
Well, this is the clarification that I received:
> The VM comment is referring to the large footprint of XEmacs which means
> that doing a fork requires copying an awful lot of data (and hence takes a
> long time), most OS's do copy-on-write for vfork so the overhead is never
> incurred.
And of course, cgf chimed in on this thread, but I can't find his message
in my mail archive, and (as mentioned elsewhere) the cygwin ml archive is
missing his message as well, so I can't quote it here for you.
--Chuck
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -