Re: [patch 1/2] fork_connector: add a fork connector

[Guillaume Thouvenin <guillaume.thouvenin@bull.net>]

On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 13:42 -0800, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Guillaume wrote:
> >   The lmbench shows that the overhead (the construction and the sending
> > of the message) in the fork() routine is around 7%.
> 
> Thanks for including the numbers.  The 7% seems a bit costly, for a bit
> more accounting information.  Perhaps dean's suggestion, to not use
> ascii, will help.  I hope so, though I doubt it will make a huge
> difference.  Was this 7% loss with or without a user level program
> consuming the sent messages?  I would think that the number of interest
> would include a minimal consumer task.

I ran some test using the CBUS instead of the cn_netlink_send() routine
and the overhead is nearly 0%:

fork connector disabled:
    Process fork+exit: 148.1429 microseconds

fork connector enabled:
    Process fork+exit: 148.4595 microseconds

Regards,
Guillaume

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/