From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263241AbTD1BbZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:31:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263268AbTD1BbY (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:31:24 -0400 Received: from user72.209.42.38.dsli.com ([209.42.38.72]:31254 "EHLO nolab.conman.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263241AbTD1BbX (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:31:23 -0400 Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:43:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Mark Grosberg To: dean gaudet Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFD] Combined fork-exec syscall. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, dean gaudet wrote: > On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Mark Grosberg wrote: > > > I would think on large, multi-user systems that are spawning processes all > > day, this might improve performance if the shells on such a system were > > patched. > > more relevant is a large multithreaded (or async model with many > connections per thread/process) webserver spawning cgi. otherwise you pay Heh. I just happen to have written a multi-threaded webserver (called Seminole), but it does CGI "in process." Actually, it runs on VxWorks too where there is no concept of a process. :-) But you're right. This could be a boon for any non-in-process (non mod_perl or PHP) webservers. The idea would be that the file mapping array would be easier to scan (kind of like how poll() is a lot easier than select()). > if you look at such webservers they tend to have a separate process just > for the purpose of spawning cgi/etc. and use some IPC to pass the data to > the cgi spawner. Yup. I suppose for Apache this could be an alternate interface of the APR spawn process function. L8r, Mark G.