From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 13:07:52 +0200 From: Ingo Oeser Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Rollup patch of basic rmap against 2.5.26 Message-ID: <20020919130752.I642@nightmaster.csn.tu-chemnitz.de> References: <41260000.1032286918@baldur.austin.ibm.com> <3D879968.B346D1C7@digeo.com> <3D879BD1.D02F645E@digeo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D879BD1.D02F645E@digeo.com>; from akpm@digeo.com on Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 02:17:05PM -0700 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Linux Scalability Effort List , Linux Memory Management List-ID: Hi, On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 02:17:05PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > rmap's overhead manifests with workloads which are setting > up and tearing doen pagetables a lot. > fork/exec/exit/pagefaults/munmap/etc. I guess forking servers > may hurt. Hmm, so we gave up one of our advantages: fork() as fast as thread creation in other OSes. Or did someone benchmark shell script execution on 2.4.x, 2.5.x, a later rmap-Kernel and compare that all with other Unices around? Regards Ingo Oeser -- Science is what we can tell a computer. Art is everything else. --- D.E.Knuth -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/