From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30897 invoked by alias); 13 Nov 2001 11:43:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 30853 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2001 11:43:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO extern11.lif.de) (149.233.74.11) by sourceware.cygnus.com with SMTP; 13 Nov 2001 11:43:53 -0000 Received: from FW ([10.1.1.1]) by extern11.lif.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA17938 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:43:44 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail.saght.tessag.com (mail.saght.tessag.com [183.1.1.104]) by uxhv01.sagmbh.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA06891 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:40:30 +0100 (MET) Received: from BRAMSCHE [10.68.28.101] by mail.saght.tessag.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id A9FD2D60110; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:54:37 +0100 From: "Ralf Habacker" To: Subject: AW: cygwin vfork Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 08:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <000101c16c39$19f18980$651c440a@BRAMSCHE> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3BF018AD.9000105@ece.gatech.edu> X-SW-Source: 2001-11/txt/msg00085.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20011111082600.ytxKFxD1giJIKJC8Icj_ODTjtOWos4OBWe2uV1Suxr4@z> > > Seen on the XEmacs list: > > > In general the cygwin build is slower, I think this is for 3 main > > reasons: > > > > 1) gcc optimization is not as good as MSVC > > 2) The cygwin portability layer adds a lot of overhead especially > > wrt file handling. > > 3) The cygwin implementation of fork-and-exec doesn't jive well with > > the VM size of xemacs. Supposedly a real vfork is in the works for > > cygwin but I can't attest to its functionality. > > Does #3 make any sense? I thought we *had* a real vfork...perhaps it > doesn't work well with large apps? > Can you explain this a little bit more ? I'm asking because in http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-xfree/2001-q4/msg00276.html I have described some problems with kde2 on cygwin relating performance and I'm very interested in getting more informations how to fix these problems. In short, loading the full kde2 desktop needs about 4 minutes and the reaction time for starting apps are > 1 minute. This seems to be unusable. My assumption are that these problems depends on application loading (vfork is used on every app), file and socket io. A regular kde2 app uses about 20-40 dll's, so a faster vfork would decrease the loading time. :-) Regards Ralf > --Chuck > > > -- > Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple > Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html > Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html > FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ > > -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/