[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Eric Cooper <ecc@c...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] re: We should all be forking |
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 03:30:47PM -0700, Christopher Cramer wrote: > If the fork had to copy the entire process image before just > throwing it away upon exec, I think Unix, which is based around a > philosophy of piping between multiple processes, would have > abandoned fork a long time ago. Then again, there is vfork, so I > guess they almost did abandon it at one point. vfork was introduced in BSD Unix when support for page-based virtual memory was added for the DEC VAX. There was an earlier Bell Labs port of Unix to the VAX that just mimicked the PDP-11's segment registers. In that scheme, I believe text segments were shared, so that only the data segment had to be copied on fork, but copy-on-write is the way to go on any architecture with page tables. -- Eric Cooper e c c @ c m u . e d u