On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 04:20:03PM +0100, Mel Flynn wrote: > On Thursday 26 November 2009 18:11:10 Linda Messerschmidt wrote: > > > I did not mean to suggest that we were asking for help solving a > > problem with squid rotation. I provided that information as > > background to discuss what we observed as a potential misbehavior in > > the new VM superpages feature, in the hope that if there is a problem > > with the new feature, we can help find/resolve it or, if this is > > working as intended, hopefully gain some insight as to what's going > > on. > > I tend to agree with this, though I don't know the nitty gritty of the > implementation, it seems that: > a) superpages aren't copied efficiently (at all?) on fork and probably other > workloads > 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). >
FYI, this comment has been removed a couple of weeks ago in HEAD and the STABLE branches. - Christian -- Christian Brueffer ch...@unixpages.org bruef...@freebsd.org GPG Key: http://people.freebsd.org/~brueffer/brueffer.key.asc GPG Fingerprint: A5C8 2099 19FF AACA F41B B29B 6C76 178C A0ED 982D
pgpuTJBCAUIrV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
