From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jan 10 22: 2:35 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mail.nyct.net (bsd4.nyct.net [204.141.86.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A7241538C for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 22:02:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mbac@nyct.net) Received: from bsd1.nyct.net (mbac@bsd1.nyct.net [204.141.86.3]) by mail.nyct.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA21409; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 01:02:24 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mbac@nyct.net) Received: from localhost (mbac@localhost) by bsd1.nyct.net (8.8.8/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA26554; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 01:02:24 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mbac@nyct.net) X-Authentication-Warning: bsd1.nyct.net: mbac owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 01:02:24 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Bacarella To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: Matthew Dillon , Scott Hess , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: rfork() [was: Concept check] In-Reply-To: <20000110170822.J9397@fw.wintelcom.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > :I've implemented a rough fix, which is to rfork() processes which I label [snip] > > > > The linuxthreads port is at least four times faster and, since it uses > > rfork(), will be I/O optimal. However, since only FreeBSD-4.x implements > > rfork(...RF_MEM) you can only use it with FreeBSD-4.x (or am I wrong > > there?). This 3.4-STABLE system has an rfork() man page. > I'm pretty sure RF_MEM doesn't work in 3.x with SMP, under UP it should > work fine I'm sorry I missed the discussion on rfork()... but I say this only because I want to understand. What were you thinking? rfork()? Why is it a system call? Almost all of the flags it accepts seem like functionality that can easily be implemented in userspace around fork() (and maybe vfork()). Why? Michael Bacarella To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message