From owner-cvs-all Sun Feb 4 13:37: 1 2001 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from aldan.algebra.com (aldan.algebra.com [216.254.65.224]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B76D37B401; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 13:36:40 -0800 (PST) Received: (from mi@localhost) by aldan.algebra.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f14LaqU41149; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 16:36:52 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mi) From: Mikhail Teterin Message-Id: <200102042136.f14LaqU41149@aldan.algebra.com> Subject: Re: mdconfig config file (was: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/conf GENERI C) To: dillon@earth.backplane.com (Matt Dillon) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 16:36:52 -0500 (EST) Cc: sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG (Maxim Sobolev), dima@unixfreak.org (Dima Dorfman), deischen@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <200102022218.f12MIV700601@earth.backplane.com> from "Matt Dillon" at ÌÀÔ 02, 2001 02:18:31 ÐÐ X-Face: %UW#n0|w>ydeGt/b@1-.UFP=K^~-:0f#O:D7w hJ5G_<5143Bb3kOIs9XpX+"V+~$adGP:J|SLieM31VIhqXeLBli" =:> =:> if ((pid = fork()) == 0) { =: =:Probably vfork() is better here, no? = My rule for using vfork() is: Does it improve performance in a = noticeable way? The answer, at least for mount_*, is no. If the = answer is no, you should simply use a normal fork(). = = fork() under FreeBSD is not all that expensive. vfork() will be = faster, but unless you are fork/exec'ing a few dozen commands a = second you will never notice the difference. I don't get this. Why would you deliberately use a slower method, even if it is only a little bit slower? Also, someone _may_ be doing this a few dozen times a second -- what do we know... -mi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message