On 8/26/05, Hugh Dickins <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Ross Biro wrote:
> > On 8/26/05, Hugh Dickins <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > The refaulting will hurt the performance of something: let's
> > > just hope that something doesn't turn out to be a show-stopper.
> >
> > Why not just fault in all the pages on the first fault. Then the performance
> > loss is a single page fault (the page table copy that would have happened a
> > fork time now happens at fault time) and you get the big win for processes
> > that do fork/exec.
>
> "all" might be very many more pages than were ever mapped in the parent,
> and not be a win. Some faultahead might work better. Might, might, ...
If you reduce "all" to whatever would have been done in fork
originially, then you've got a big win in some cases and a minimal
loss in others, and it's easy to argue you've got something better.
Now changng "all" to something even less might be an even bigger win,
but that requires a lot of benchmarking to justify.
Ross
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |