From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751338AbVHZXL1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:11:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751505AbVHZXL1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:11:27 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:64203 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751338AbVHZXL1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:11:27 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:10:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: riel@cuia.boston.redhat.com To: Hugh Dickins cc: Linus Torvalds , Nick Piggin , Ray Fucillo , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: process creation time increases linearly with shmem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <430CBFD1.7020101@intersystems.com> <430D0D6B.100@yahoo.com.au> <430E6FD4.9060102@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. -- All Rights Reversed