From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262439AbTJJEjk (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:39:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262440AbTJJEjk (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:39:40 -0400 Received: from mail.jlokier.co.uk ([81.29.64.88]:24715 "EHLO mail.shareable.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262439AbTJJEjj (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:39:39 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 05:39:32 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier To: bill davidsen Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Who changed /proc// in 2.6.0-test5-bk9? Message-ID: <20031010043932.GA26379@mail.shareable.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org bill davidsen wrote: > Your base point that resources shouldn't be shared needlessly is > correct, or course. On that theme, non-shared fd tables are slightly faster than shared due to (a) reduced cache line transfers between CPUs; (b) fewer fds between tables reduces the time to search for a free fd when something is opened. I'm sure it's a tiny effect, but it is there. -- Jamie