Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 07:55:25 -0700 (MST) From: "Ronald G. Minnich" <rminnich@lanl.gov> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: rfork() [was: Concept check] Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0001121426210.6492-100000@mini.acl.lanl.gov> In-Reply-To: <200001122025.PAA14283@lor.watermarkgroup.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Luoqi Chen wrote: > It's almost a regular fork(), we lose all the advantages of a single > address space. A rfork(RFMEM) wrapper can achieve the same level of > usability without sacrificing the performance, and IMO is a preferred > solution. I don't see this at all. You get many of the advantages of the single address space: everything is shared save the stack. Most people who have brought this up over the years want this type of behaviour, and find themselves having to hack it in user mode, and not enjoying the experience. I used this very version of rfork extensively for years for shared-memory programming and it was fine. Anyway, if I get to this it goes on my web page .. ron To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.20.0001121426210.6492-100000>