--eQ8QKBgzzGzhafWG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Should I replace "vfork" by "fork"? I don't have enough knowledge to > decide. Any OS guru? By no means would I consider myself an OS guru, but, this tid bit is taken from the FreeBSD man page. Though I haven't looked at the code, I bet the child process isn't exiting correctly as the man page indicates. The use of vfork() seems like a performance win when used correctly. -sc Vfork() can be used to create new processes without fully copying the address space of the old process, which is horrendously inefficient inpaged environment. It is useful when the purpose of fork(2) would have been to create a new system context for an execve(2). Vfork() differs from fork(2) in that the child borrows the parent's memory and thread of control until a call to execve(2) or an exit (either by a call to _exit(2) or abnormally). The parent process is suspended while the child is using its resources. Vfork() returns 0 in the child's context and (later) the pid of the child in the parent's context. Vfork() can normally be used just like fork(2). It does not work, how- ever, to return while running in the childs context from the procedure that called vfork() since the eventual return from vfork() would then return to a no longer existent stack frame. Be careful, also, to call _exit(2) rather than exit(3) if you can't execve(2), since exit(3) will flush and close standard I/O channels, and thereby mess up the parent processes standard I/O data structures. (Even with fork(2) it is wrong to call exit(3) since buffered data would then be flushed twice.) -- Sean Chittenden --eQ8QKBgzzGzhafWG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Sean Chittenden <sean / chittenden.org> iEYEARECAAYFAjthOUwACgkQn09c7x7d+q1B0ACgyuzo7BdNKJl9vDh3u/JHHzPQ IN0AnjzAO3csJmCTy0c09jqqDmVMiW1Z ¨Â-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --eQ8QKBgzzGzhafWG--