The UNIX system call for process creation, fork(), creates a child process by copying the parent process. My understanding is that this is almost always followed by a call to exec() to replace the child process' memory space (including text segment). Copying the parent's memory space in fork() always seemed wasteful to me (although I realize the waste can be minimized by making the memory segments copy-on-write so only pointers are copied). Anyway, does anyone know why this duplication approach is required for process creation?
2 Answers
It's to simplify the interface. The alternative to fork
and exec
would be something like Windows' CreateProcess function. Notice how many parameters CreateProcess
has, and many of them are structs with even more parameters. This is because everything you might want to control about the new process has to be passed to CreateProcess
. In fact, CreateProcess
doesn't have enough parameters, so Microsoft had to add CreateProcessAsUser and CreateProcessWithLogonW.
With the fork/exec
model, you don't need all those parameters. Instead, certain attributes of the process are preserved across exec
. This allows you to fork
, then change whatever process attributes you want (using the same functions you'd use normally), and then exec
. In Linux, fork
has no parameters, and execve
has only 3: the program to run, the command line to give it, and its environment. (There are other exec
functions, but they're just wrappers around execve
provided by the C library to simplify common use cases.)
If you want to start a process with a different current directory: fork
, chdir
, exec
.
If you want to redirect stdin/stdout: fork
, close/open files, exec
.
If you want to switch users: fork
, setuid
, exec
.
All these things can be combined as needed. If somebody comes up with a new kind of process attribute, you don't have to change fork
and exec
.
As larsks mentioned, most modern Unixes use copy-on-write, so fork
doesn't involve significant overhead.
-
21Excellent explanation. "Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." -- Henry Spencer Commented Feb 7, 2012 at 19:57
-
2@Aki, nope, CreateProcess() literally makes a new process and builds it up from scratch, no forking.– psusiCommented Feb 7, 2012 at 23:19
-
4But must there not be some equivalent of CreateProcess() somewhere in Unix? Otherwise how does the very first process get created? Unlike a mythological creator god, the first process cannot fork() itself from nothingness. ;-) Commented Feb 8, 2012 at 3:54
-
8@StevenMonday, yes, but it's in the kernel's initialization code and not externally accessible. It doesn't need all those parameters because almost everything is hardcoded. It can only create process ID 1, a.k.a. the init process. After that, processes are created only by forking.– cjmCommented Feb 8, 2012 at 23:18
-
6@StevenMonday, the first process is hand crafted by God ( the kernel )– psusiCommented Feb 9, 2012 at 2:43
In adition to the cjm's answer, the Single Unix Specification defines a function named vfork()
. That function works like fork, except that the forked process has undefined behavior if it does anything other than try calling an exec familly function, or calling _exit()
.
Thus pretty much the only use with defined behavior is:
pid_t ret = vfork();
if(ret == 0)
{
exec(...);
_exit(EXIT_FAILURE); //in case exec failed for any reason.
}
So what does vfork
do? It is is an inexpensive fork
. In implemenations without copy-on-write, the resulting process will share memory space with the original process (hence the undefined behavior). In implementations with copy-on-write, vfork
is permitted to be identical to fork()
, since copy-on-write implementations are fast.
There is also the optional posix_spawn
function (and a posix_spawnp
function) which can directly create a new process. (It is also permissible to implement them with a library call using fork
and exec
, and an example implementation is provided.)
fork(2)
man page under Linux says:Under Linux, fork() is implemented using copy-on-write pages, so the only penalty that it incurs is the time and memory required to duplicate the parent's page tables, and to create a unique task structure for the child.
I imagine (but do not know for certain) that this is the case for other modern Unix flavors.select
was broken, but that is another story).