From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Nov 21 13:56:37 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA16959
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:56:37 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers)
Received: from Kitten.mcs.com (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA16954
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:56:27 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from nash@Jupiter.Mcs.Net)
Received: from Jupiter.Mcs.Net (nash@Jupiter.mcs.net [192.160.127.88]) by Kitten.mcs.com (8.8.5/8.8.2) with ESMTP id PAA08832; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 15:56:26 -0600 (CST)
Received: from localhost (nash@localhost) by Jupiter.Mcs.Net (8.8.7/8.8.2) with SMTP id PAA10215; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 15:56:26 -0600 (CST)
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 15:56:25 -0600 (CST)
From: Alex Nash <nash@Mcs.Net>
To: Curtis Bray <cbray@best.com>
cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: malloc() problems in children after using rfork()
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971121133610.10841A-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.971121155158.2450K-100000@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 21 Nov 1997, Curtis Bray wrote:

>    From what I'd seen in the mail list archives, it appears the rfork()
> method may work better for these IO bound applications.  I was assuming
> that once the RFMEM flag was set, then the VM system would respect
> multiple children sharing the same address space. That's what I've
> gotten from the man pages anyway:

The problem is not with the VM system, but with the C library's malloc()
routine (lib/libc/stdlib/malloc.c).  The malloc routines have several
critical sections within them which are unprotected when using the single
threaded library.

Alex