From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
Ray Fucillo <fucillo@intersystems.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: process creation time increases linearly with shmem
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 16:23:38 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0508261621410.3317@g5.osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0508261910080.8057@cuia.boston.redhat.com>
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> > Well, I still don't think we need to test vm_file. We can add an
> > anon_vma test if you like, if we really want to minimize the fork
> > overhead, in favour of later faults. Do we?
>
> When you consider NUMA placement (the child process may
> end up running elsewhere), allocating things like page
> tables lazily may well end up being a performance win.
It should be easy enough to benchmark something like kernel compiles etc,
which are reasonably fork-rich and should show a good mix for something
like this. Or even just something like "time to restart a X session" after
you've brought it into memory once.
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-08-26 23:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-08-24 18:43 process creation time increases linearly with shmem Ray Fucillo
2005-08-25 0:14 ` Nick Piggin
2005-08-25 13:07 ` Ray Fucillo
2005-08-25 13:13 ` Andi Kleen
2005-08-25 14:28 ` Nick Piggin
2005-08-25 17:31 ` Rik van Riel
2005-08-26 1:26 ` Nick Piggin
2005-08-26 1:50 ` Rik van Riel
2005-08-26 3:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-08-26 11:49 ` Hugh Dickins
2005-08-26 14:26 ` Nick Piggin
2005-08-26 17:00 ` Ray Fucillo
2005-08-26 17:53 ` Rik van Riel
2005-08-26 18:20 ` Ross Biro
2005-08-26 18:56 ` Hugh Dickins
[not found] ` <8783be660508260915524e2b1e@mail.gmail.com>
2005-08-26 16:38 ` Hugh Dickins
2005-08-26 16:43 ` Ross Biro
2005-08-26 18:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-08-26 18:41 ` Hugh Dickins
2005-08-26 22:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-08-26 23:10 ` Rik van Riel
2005-08-26 23:23 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2005-08-27 15:05 ` Nick Piggin
2005-08-28 4:26 ` Hugh Dickins
2005-08-28 6:49 ` Nick Piggin
2005-08-29 23:33 ` Ray Fucillo
2005-08-30 0:29 ` Nick Piggin
2005-08-30 1:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-08-30 0:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-08-25 14:05 Parag Warudkar
2005-08-25 14:22 ` Andi Kleen
2005-08-25 14:35 ` Nick Piggin
2005-08-25 14:47 ` Parag Warudkar
2005-08-25 15:56 ` Andi Kleen
2005-12-14 14:07 Brice Oliver
2005-12-14 16:21 ` Hugh Dickins
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.58.0508261621410.3317@g5.osdl.org \
--to=torvalds@osdl.org \
--cc=fucillo@intersystems.com \
--cc=hugh@veritas.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).