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
Message-ID: <3BF13F87.2070600@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:43:03 -0500
From: Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ralf Habacker <Ralf DOT Habacker AT freenet DOT de>
CC: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: AW: cygwin vfork
References: <000101c16c39$19f18980$651c440a AT BRAMSCHE>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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/