Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-WM-Posted-At: avacado.atomice.net; Sat, 20 Apr 02 03:06:56 +0100 Message-ID: <018501c1e810$0bea9bd0$0100a8c0@advent02> From: "Chris January" To: Subject: Copy-on-write fork Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 03:06:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 This is mainly a question aimed at Christopher Faylor, but maybe someone else knows the answer. My question is, with regard to Chris's post "Re: copy-on-write (oh well)" [http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-developers/2000-07/msg00026.html], does anyone know why a copy-on-write implementation of fork takes longer than the current Cygwin version?? BTW, I've not had any problems forking beyond the first level using the example code from 'Window NT/2000 Native API reference'. What problems did you encounter Chris? My test case is probably not rigorous enough. A test program and statistics are shown below which clearly show Cygwin's fork implementation in the lead. #include #include #include int main(void) { int pid, i; DWORD dwStartTicks, dwEndTicks; dwStartTicks = GetTickCount(); for (i=0;i<100;i++) { pid = fork(); if (!pid) exit(0); } dwEndTicks = GetTickCount(); printf("average fork time = %g ms\n", (dwEndTicks - dwStartTicks)/1000.0); } test uses the copy-on-write implementation test2 uses Cygwin's implementation $ time ./test average fork time = 3.345 ms real 0m3.391s user 0m0.020s sys 0m0.030s $ time ./test2 average fork time = 1.972 ms real 0m2.043s user 0m0.060s sys 0m0.220s Regards Chris -- 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/