Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:18:08 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Copy-on-write fork
Message-ID: <20020420021808.GA648@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <018501c1e810$0bea9bd0$0100a8c0 AT advent02>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <018501c1e810$0bea9bd0$0100a8c0@advent02>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 03:06:55AM +0100, Chris January wrote:
>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.

I don't know.  I've remarked on this in the past.  My benchmarks showed
the same thing.  I was excited about doing this when I was first hired
by Cygnus since I wanted to contribute to making cygwin faster.

I implemented a fork using Windows API copy-on-write (for NT) and I
believe I also tried to use the low-level NT technique.  Neither showed
any noticeable performance gain and, of course, both suffered from
being NT-only.

I assume that one possible reason is that the copy-on-write fork may be
somehow bypassing normal in-memory sharing of text segments but I never
knew for sure.

The problems with forking beyond the first level are for the Windows
API method, not with the low-level NT calls.

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/