From: dean gaudet <dean-list-linux-kernel@arctic.org>
To: "Måns Rullgård" <mru@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: Mark Grosberg <mark@nolab.conman.org>,
Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFD] Combined fork-exec syscall.
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 18:49:26 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0304271843010.8792@twinlark.arctic.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <yw1xptn7z9m6.fsf@zaphod.guide>
On Sun, 28 Apr 2003, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Mark Grosberg <mark@nolab.conman.org> writes:
>
> > > If you do this, _please_ make it compat with NT.
> >
> > Actually, I thought about this. My first thought is this could benefit
> > WINE running on Linux. Then (not like I'm a Wine expert by any means) I
> > figured it might be an issue as far as having to do some preliminary
> > wineserver setup work (if anybody on this list knows better than me, speak
> > up!)
> >
> > But yeah, basically, something similar to NT's CreateProcess(). For the
> > cases where the one-step process creation is sufficient.
>
> Is that the call that takes dozens of parameters? Copying :-) that
> is, IMHO, straight against the UNIX philosophy.
unfortunately you want those dozen parameters, they all have a purpose...
which is what makes such a call suspect in the first place.
vfork() solves the mm copying problem, which eliminates half the reason
for a combined fork-exec syscall.
the only time fork-exec is inefficient, given the existence of vfork, is
when you need to fork a process which has a lot of fd. and by "a lot" i
mean thousands.
in that case even F_CLOEXEC isn't a good answer -- because it's a pain in
the ass to set because it requires an extra system call for the most
important case -- sockets. otherwise you have to iterate over the entire
fd array to close things... which isn't so hot for multiprocessor setups.
but even this has a potential work-around using procfs -- use clone() to
get the vfork semantics without also copying the fd array. then open
/proc/$ppid/fd/N for any file descriptors you want opened in the forked
process.
given both vfork and procfs i'm not sure there's any other performance
benefit a combined fork+exec syscall offers... and if procfs isn't fast
enough for this then that's a better place to focus effort :)
-dean
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-04-28 1:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-04-28 0:57 [RFD] Combined fork-exec syscall Mark Grosberg
2003-04-28 0:59 ` Larry McVoy
2003-04-28 1:16 ` Mark Grosberg
2003-04-28 1:36 ` Måns Rullgård
2003-04-28 1:45 ` Mark Grosberg
2003-04-28 1:49 ` dean gaudet [this message]
2003-04-28 1:59 ` Mark Grosberg
2003-04-28 2:27 ` Miles Bader
2003-04-28 19:07 ` dean gaudet
2003-05-01 13:14 ` Jakob Oestergaard
2003-04-28 1:17 ` Davide Libenzi
2003-04-28 1:28 ` Mark Grosberg
2003-04-29 2:01 ` Rafael Costa dos Santos
2003-04-28 1:41 ` Ulrich Drepper
2003-04-28 1:49 ` Mark Grosberg
2003-04-28 2:19 ` Ulrich Drepper
2003-04-28 6:59 ` Kai Henningsen
2003-04-28 1:35 ` dean gaudet
2003-04-28 1:43 ` Mark Grosberg
2003-04-28 3:44 ` Mark Mielke
2003-04-28 5:16 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-04-28 2:38 ` Davide Libenzi
2003-04-28 2:09 ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-04-28 2:12 ` Mark Grosberg
2003-04-28 2:42 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-04-28 6:35 ` Mark Grosberg
2003-04-29 2:47 ` Rafael Santos
2003-04-28 3:20 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-04-28 13:00 ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-04-28 13:22 ` Andreas Schwab
2003-04-28 13:57 ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-04-28 13:57 ` Andreas Schwab
2003-04-28 14:16 ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-04-28 14:38 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-04-28 14:56 ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-04-28 14:42 ` Andreas Schwab
2003-04-28 16:36 ` Mark Grosberg
2003-04-28 17:19 ` Davide Libenzi
2003-04-28 18:28 ` Craig Ruff
2003-05-06 2:48 ` Miles Bader
2003-04-29 18:50 ` Timothy Miller
2003-04-28 2:32 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-04-28 7:40 ` Mirar
2003-04-28 12:45 ` Matthias Andree
2003-04-29 1:05 ` Rafael Costa dos Santos
2003-04-28 1:19 ` Mark Grosberg
2003-04-29 1:29 ` Rafael Costa dos Santos
2003-04-28 3:03 Davide Libenzi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.53.0304271843010.8792@twinlark.arctic.org \
--to=dean-list-linux-kernel@arctic.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lm@bitmover.com \
--cc=mark@nolab.conman.org \
--cc=mru@users.sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).