Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!mephisto!bbn.com!lkaplan From: lkaplan@bbn.com (Larry Kaplan) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: vfork (was Re: Paging page tables) Message-ID: <58222@bbn.BBN.COM> Date: 16 Jul 90 17:01:29 GMT References: <920@dgis.dtic.dla.mil> <5830@titcce.cc.titech.ac.jp> <2340@root44.co.uk> Sender: news@bbn.com Reply-To: lkaplan@BBN.COM (Larry Kaplan) Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA Lines: 21 In article <2340@root44.co.uk> jgh@root.co.uk (Jeremy G Harris) writes: >Proposal: A segment type which is _lost_ by the child of a fork. > This segment type is already implemented in Mach derived systems. It consists of making a vm_inherit call on the region with an inheritance of VM_INHERIT_NONE. Child processes will not receive any knowledge of memory segments marked in this manner. I'm not sure about the utility of such a feature in relation to fork vs vfork. While you could conceivably mark all the regions you KNOW you won't need after the fork but before the exec, it appears too involved a job for the typical programmer. I could be wrong though, someone might think it worth doing. #include _______________________________________________________________________________ ____ \ / ____ Laurence S. Kaplan | \ 0 / | BBN Advanced Computers lkaplan@bbn.com \____|||____/ 10 Fawcett St. (617) 873-2431 /__/ | \__\ Cambridge, MA 02238