Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:08:36 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> To: Mel Flynn <mel.flynn+fbsd.hackers@mailing.thruhere.net> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Linda Messerschmidt <linda.messerschmidt@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Superpages on amd64 FreeBSD 7.2-STABLE Message-ID: <4B1E5DE4.1010702@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <200912071620.03371.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.hackers@mailing.thruhere.net> References: <237c27100911260714x2fcb194ew1e6ce11e764efd08@mail.gmail.com> <867htduvwh.fsf@ds4.des.no> <237c27100911260911w2674b79ds8ac447e900324dce@mail.gmail.com> <200912071620.03371.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.hackers@mailing.thruhere.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 07/12/2009 17:20 Mel Flynn said the following: > b) vfork is encouraged for memory intensive applications, yet: > BUGS > This system call will be eliminated when proper system sharing mechanisms > are implemented. Users should not depend on the memory sharing semantics > of vfork() as it will, in that case, be made synonymous to fork(2). > > So is this entire problem eliminated when system sharing mechanisms are in > place and vfork considered the temporary work around or is copying of > superpages a problem that remains? I think no :) This section is either already removed or is going to be. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4B1E5DE4.1010702>