On Friday 04 September 2009 02:28, Doug Graham wrote: > Conclusion: vfork is totally weird :-) > > > No, it just requires you to be much more careful. > > But on the bright side, it's many times fater than fork, > > and exists on NOMMU too. > > > > Now you've got me curious about something different. Is vfork really > that much faster on > modern systems with MMUs? Certainly I could see it being faster on a system > without an MMU, where presumably there's no such thing as copy-on-write, > but with
vfork is not just faster on NOMMU. It EXISTS on NOMMU. fork does not. > an MMU does it really take a noticable amount of time just to copy the > page tables for > reasonable-sized processes? It is big enough to flush 64k L1 dcache. -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
