12 Apr
2019
12 Apr
'19
5:33 p.m.
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 8:51 AM Noel Chiappa <jnc(a)mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
wrote:
Signals, fds, address space, copy vs share, COW vs copy now, etc are all
things. Also I'd split hairs on (i): you need some way to create a new
thread of execution within a process, which is where a lot of the focus of
criticisms of fork has focused on the past.
From: Richard
Salz
Any view on this?
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/a-fork-in-the-road/
Having read this, and seen the subsequent discussion, I think both sides
have
good points.
What I perceive to be happening is something I've described previously, but
never named, which is that as a system scales up, it can be necessary to
take
one subsystem which did two things, and split it up so there's a custom
subsystem for each.
I've seen this a lot in networking; I've been trying to remember some of
the
examples I've seen, and here's the best one I can come up with at the
moment:
having the routing track 'unique-ID network interface names' (i.e.
interface
'addresses') - think 48-bit IEEE interface IDs' - directly. In a small
network, this works fine for routing traffic, and as a side-benefit, gives
you
mobility. Doesn't scale, though - you have to build an 'interface ID to
location name mapping system', and use 'location names' (i.e.
'addresses')
in
the routing.
So classic Unix 'fork' does two things: i) creates a new process, and ii)
replicates
the environment/etc of an existing process. (In early Unix, the latter was
pretty
simple, but as the paper points out, it has now become a) complex and b)
expensive.)
I think the answer has to include decomposing the
functionality of old
fork()
into several separate sub-primitives (albeit not all necessarily directly
accessible to the user): a new-process primitive, which can be bundled
with a
number of different alternatives (e.g. i) exec(), ii) environment
replication,
iii) address-space replication, etc) - perhaps more than one at once.
So that shell would want a form of fork() which bundled in i) and ii), but
large applications might want something else. And there might be several
variants of ii), e.g. one might replicate only environment variables,
another
might add I/O channels, etc.
In a larger system, there's just no 'one size fits all' answer, I think.
Agreed. We've already seen that happening, some examples are quite old. We
had vfork() (dating back to 3BSD) which tried to optimize the duplication
stuff. More recently, rfork() (plan9 and later BSD) and clone() (Linux) [*]
have been used to specify what parts of process are copied and/or shared to
allow, among other things, light weight threads to be one of the possible
answers, to allow the fork to happen asynchronously, etc. Linux has a bunch
of other variants as well.
fork as a boogie man is a well known trope, honestly. Criticism of it, and
solutions for it's all-or-nothing approach have been proffered for a long
time. These solutions range from having the helper child process to spawn
other things a more complex process wants, to specialized ways to create
threads (which are process-like things that share an address space and
benefit from special handling in the kernel), to things like rfork or clone
that try to pick-and-choose what aspects of process duplication are needed.
There's a reason that the clone man page is maybe 10x longer than the
classic fork man page.
Warner
[*] This doesn't even begin to look at things like what Solaris, Irix, or a
dozen other unix derivatives did to create threads and/or optimize
different use cases of fork..