Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 5 Aug 2012 23:54:32 +0200
From:      Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl>
To:        Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
Cc:        freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: system() using vfork() or posix_spawn()
Message-ID:  <20120805215432.GA28704@stack.nl>
In-Reply-To: <20120730105303.GU2676@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
References:  <20120730102408.GA19983@stack.nl> <20120730105303.GU2676@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 01:53:03PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 12:24:08PM +0200, Jilles Tjoelker wrote:
> > People sometimes use system() from large address spaces where it would
> > improve performance greatly to use vfork() instead of fork().

> > A simple approach is to change fork() to vfork(), although I have not
> > tried this. It seems safe enough to use sigaction and sigprocmask system
> > calls in the vforked process.

> > Alternatively, we can have posix_spawn() do the vfork() with signal
> > changes. This avoids possible whining from compilers and static
> > analyzers about using vfork() in system.c. However, I do not like the
> > tricky code for signals and that it adds lines of code.

> > This is lightly tested.

> It is interesting to note that for some time our vfork(2) no longer
> stops the whole forked process (parent), only the forking thread is
> waiting for the child exit or exec. I am not sure is this point
> important for system(3), but determined code can notice the difference
> from the fork->vfork switch.

Neither fork nor vfork call thread_single(SINGLE_BOUNDARY), so this is
not a difference.

Thread singling may be noticeable from a failing execve() (but only in
the process doing execve()) and in the rare case of rfork() without
RFPROC.

-- 
Jilles Tjoelker



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120805215432.GA28704>