Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!necntc!adelie!mirror!cca!lmi-angel!wsr From: wsr@lmi-angel.UUCP (Wolfgang Rupprecht) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: Forwarded message (MINIX) Message-ID: <101@lmi-angel.UUCP> Date: Fri, 9-Jan-87 11:22:13 EST Article-I.D.: lmi-ange.101 Posted: Fri Jan 9 11:22:13 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 11-Jan-87 22:40:24 EST References: <2771@mit-hermes.AI.MIT.EDU> Reply-To: wsr@lmi-angel.UUCP (Wolfgang Rupprecht) Organization: LISP Machine, Inc (Cambridge Engineering HQ) Lines: 17 In article <> jec@iuvax.indiana.EDU writes: > Okay, I give up. How in the world do you do a fork() without >some sort of MMU. Running without an MMU is clearly a loser. I believe that you can still have a fork(), however, it you don't mind running at a snail's pace. What you can do is take a snapshot of the process at fork time, and send this copy off to swap space. In this manner you never end up having more than one process on core at any time. All non-running processes will be swapped out. No address translation is required since no two processes will ever be co-resident. Now, if only one could protect kernal address space from corruption... -- Wolfgang Rupprecht {harvard|decvax!cca|mit-eddie}!lmi-angel!wsr