From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 10 15:23:09 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C3ED106566B for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:23:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linda.messerschmidt@gmail.com) Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.152]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02D4A8FC1A for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:23:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 16so557335fgg.13 for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:23:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=4icy5XwuEfXvyzrRCUFKrq7hNHOxuyVT64WT9hh0TQU=; b=NKiCVVc7T+hlhrmy3yBtNzNK63VqJ3A7tcEZxqX2+bNae2MC2okJMmKLtGs0q+C+Qj CzKL1jsFtIGgbroP7o+BkxiZ48/G0wH+ojhvndamg9WqKpHM8+3yKiFI3GRe8ndHGPrX HmUbD0xFYViWlt+G6pcqRe/F/ohNZCqPPA6GU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=Lca39TeF0dGVIVwdY687A8aNLjMkKrIkcklgxOXM6tFlovUQN9efuqvrtEA9YjIpE/ jYYqJroBGAOYnn2jyHCUhQVbBHlNvDGX6HUcFPvd/46XePaEttMqLx7WXek73xtRAuw4 lNLwm8HsIBuEmQqwpDqWtBOMVosZolJtBhu7E= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.90.11 with SMTP id d11mr8435wef.187.1260458587498; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:23:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20091210145052.GX20668@cicely7.cicely.de> References: <237c27100911260714x2fcb194ew1e6ce11e764efd08@mail.gmail.com> <200912090907.33433.jhb@freebsd.org> <20091210145052.GX20668@cicely7.cicely.de> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:23:07 -0500 Message-ID: <237c27100912100723u77c5dd2udbcd3732ed9ee6a@mail.gmail.com> From: Linda Messerschmidt To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: Superpages on amd64 FreeBSD 7.2-STABLE X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:23:09 -0000 Also... On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Bernd Walter wrote: > I use fork myself, because it is easier sometimes, but people writing > big programms such as squid should know better. > If squid doesn't use vfork they likely have a reason. Actually they are probably going to switch to vfork(). They were previously not using it because they thought there was some ambiguity about whether it was going to be around long term. I actually am not a huge fan of vfork() since it stalls the parent process until the child exec()'s. To me, this case actually highlights why that's an issue. If the explanation is that stuff is happening in the parent process between fork() and the child's exec() causes the fragmentation, that's stuff that would be deferred in a vfork() regime, with unknown potential consequences. (At a minimum, decreased performance.) But that's personal and largely uninformed opinion. :)