> Windows has CreateProcess, which isn't available elsewhere.
Yes, we still need fork() on *nix. So the solution is to reduce the
overhead of fork(). Attach to shared memory after fork() might be a
"Better shared memory management".
> This is one of the reasons for using a c
"=?UTF-8?B?6YKx5a6H6IiqKOeDm+i/nCk=?=" writes:
> Fork is an expensive operation[1].
Yeah, it's not hugely cheap.
> So I propose to remove shared buffers from postmaster and shmat them
> after fork.
This proposal seems moderately insane. In the first place, it
introduces failure modes we could
On 4/26/21 11:56 PM, 邱宇航(烛远) wrote:
> Fork is an expensive operation[1]. The major cost is the mm(VMA
> PTE...) copy.
>
> ARM is especially weak on fork, which will invalid TLB entries one by
> one, and this is an expensive operation[2]. We could easily got 100%
> CPU on ARM machine. We also meet
Fork is an expensive operation[1]. The major cost is the mm(VMA PTE...) copy.
ARM is especially weak on fork, which will invalid TLB entries one by one, and
this is an expensive operation[2]. We could easily got 100% CPU on ARM machine.
We also meet fork problem in x86, but not as serious as arm
