From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263011AbTD1BX3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:23:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263111AbTD1BX3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:23:29 -0400 Received: from twinlark.arctic.org ([168.75.98.6]:56527 "EHLO twinlark.arctic.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263011AbTD1BX2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:23:28 -0400 Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 18:35:41 -0700 (PDT) From: dean gaudet To: Mark Grosberg cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFD] Combined fork-exec syscall. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: X-comment: visit http://arctic.org/~dean/legal for information regarding copyright and disclaimer. 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, 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 the costs of duplicating the mm and even if you use F_CLOEXEC (which has a cost-per-connection) you have to pay for scanning the open fds. 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. -dean