Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date:	Tue, 13 Nov 2001 13:13:20 -0500
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: AW: cygwin vfork
Message-ID:	<20011113181320.GA959@redhat.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<000101c16c39$19f18980$651c440a AT BRAMSCHE> <3BF13F87 DOT 2070600 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<3BF13F87.2070600@ece.gatech.edu>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 10:43:03AM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> 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.

With vfork, there is very little copying going on.  Only cygwin's heap is
copied.

Of course, if you don't use vfork then cygwin's fork implementation *is*
pretty slow.

cgf

--
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 -