At Sat, 28 Jul 2001 04:35:28 +0900,
Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > The manpage describes a nightmare of undefined and incompatible
> > (across systems) behaviour.  It actually describes vfork as "a spectre
> > from the past"!  AFAICT vfork is just an optimisation to avoid
> > unnecessary copying when the child process immediately does an execve.
> > Due to Linux's copy-on-write implementation the overhead is small.  In
> > fact, for much of Linux's history vfork was identical to fork.
> 
> 	And actually, FreeBSD's copy-on-write (base for linux's COW), is 
> pretty optimized, so it wouldn't surprise me to hear that vfork is a 
> legacy beast (does research)... yup, it is!

That's probably true, but NetBSD folks claim that a decently
implemented vfork() still wins over fork():

	http://www.netbsd.org/Documentation/kernel/vfork.html

-- 
                     /
                    /__  __            Akinori.org / MUSHA.org
                   / )  )  ) )  /     FreeBSD.org / Ruby-lang.org
Akinori MUSHA aka / (_ /  ( (__(  @ iDaemons.org / and.or.jp

"Freeze this moment a little bit longer, make each impression
  a little bit stronger..  Experience slips away -- Time stand still"