Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!rutgers!mit-eddie!bu.edu!xylogics!samsung!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!texbell!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: vfork() and swap space allocation Message-ID: <+FP4PP@xds13.ferranti.com> Date: 16 Jul 90 14:53:37 GMT References: <5813@titcce.cc.titech.ac.jp> <2699E08D.117A@tct.uucp> <5844@titcce.cc.titech.ac.jp> <269DBEFB.583C@tct.uucp> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 12 In article <269DBEFB.583C@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > >With vfork, such a situation never occur (except for stack segment), > >becasue fork is denied. > Note the "except" clause. Mr. Masataka himself here points out that > vfork() is an incomplete solution, since a kernel with vfork() must be > prepared to deal gracefully with swap space exhaustion due to stack > modification. Is it absolutely necessary to clone the stack segment in a vfork() call? If so, then it's not a general replacement for spawn(), because a machine without memory management hardware can't relocate a stack. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180.